Allowed

Children'S Academy v. Smt.Indir Ramchandran and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2005WP/749/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition contesting the Industrial Court's order granting gratuity to a teacher. Relying on the Supreme Court, the Court held that teachers in unaided schools are not 'employees' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18th January 1994 passed by the Industrial Court set aside; order of Controlling Authority restored; petitioner allowed to withdraw deposited amount if deposited as per earlier Co

Children'S Academy Vs Smt.Indir Ramchandran… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 749 OF 1994.

¶4

Children’s Academy. ... Petitioner Versus. Smt.Indira Ramachandran & anr. ... Respondents.

¶5

... Respondents.

¶6

Shri Salgaonkar i/by M/s.Salgaonkar & Co.for the Petitioner.

¶7

Shri B.C.Shah for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &

¶9

ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 29th November, 2005.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. The petitioner is an unaided school established
in the year 1970. In this petition, the petitioner has
impugned the order dated 18th January 1994 passed by the
Industrial Court in Appeal (PGA) No.7 of 1993.
Respondent 1 was one of the teachers employed by the
petitioner-school. It appears that she resigned from
the service with effect from 31st December 1991.
Respondent 1 made an application for payment of gratuity
under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in
the Third Labour Court, Bombay, being Application No.96
of 1992. While disposing of the application, the
Controlling Authority and the Judge of the 3rd Labour
Court vide his order dated 21st July 1993 held that
though the educational institution is an industry,

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

teacher	is	not	a wo	rkman,	and	therefor	e, pro	visions	of
the	Payment	of	Gratuity	Act	cannot	be	made	applicable	to
the	teacher.	In	view	of	this,	it	was	held	that

¶15

respondent 1 is not entitled to gratuity as per the

¶16

provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶17

2.		Responde	nt 1 carried	the matter in ap	peal bein	g
Appeal	No.7	of	1993	before the	A	ppellate	Authority	under
the	Payment	of	Gratuity	Act.	While	dealing	with	the
question		whether	the	petitioner		is	a co	mmercial
establishm	ent	under	the	Payment	of	Gratuity	Act	and
whether	r	espondent	1 has	proved	that	she	is entitle	d to
gratuity	am	ount,	the	Industrial	Court	held	that	the
establishm	ent	of	the	petitioner-scho	ol	is a	co	mmercial
establishm	ent	under	the	provisions	of	section	1(3)(b)	of
the	Payment	of	Gratuity	Act and	hence	the	3rd	Labour
Court	was	wrong	in	reject	ing	the	application	for
gratuity.		The	Industrial	Court	held	that	respondent	1

¶18

is entitled to get gratuity. It is this order which is

¶19

impugned in this petition.

¶20

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

¶21

3.	W	e have heard	the learne	d Counsel	appeari	ng for
the	parties.	Our	attention	is	draw	n to	the	judgment	of
the	Supreme	Court	in	Ahmed	abad	(P.)	Primary	Te	achers’
Association	v/s.		Admini	strative	Offic	er, 20	04	I	CLR
495.	Same	question	came	up	for	consi	deration	before	the
Supreme	Court	in	this	case.		After	cons	idering	the
provisions	of	the Pay	ment	of G	ratuity	Act	1972	and	the

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

relevant case law, the Supreme Court has observed as

¶24

under:

¶25

	"23.		The	Legislat	ure was	alive to	various
	kinds		of	definitions	of	word	’employee’
	contained		in		various	previous	labour
	enactments		when	the	Act wa	s passed in	1972.
	If	it	intended	to	cover in	the definition	of
	’employee’		all	kind	s of	employees, it	could
	have	as	well	used	such wide	language as	is
	contained		in	sectio	n 2(f)	of the E	mployees’
	Provident		Funds	Ac	t,	1952 which	defines
	’employee’	to	me	an ’an	y person	who is	employed
	for	wages	in	any	kind of	work, manua	l or
	otherwise,		in	or in	connection	with the	work
	of	an	establ	ihment....’	Non-use	of such	wide
	language		in	the	definition	of ’employee’	in
	Section	2(e)	of	the	Act of	1972 reinforce	s our
	conclusion covered in	that tea the defin	chers are ition."	clearly not
In	view	of	this	authoritat	ive pro	nouncement of	the
Supreme	cou	rt,	the	Industrial	Court	has fallen into	a
grave erro gratuity.	r in holding t	hat respo	ndent 1 is e	ntitled to
4.		In view	of this w	e set aside	the impugned
judgment	and	order	dated	18th	January	1994 passed b	y the

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

Industrial		Court,	Bo	mbay.		Order	of	the	Co	ntrolling
Authority		under	the	Paym	ent of	Grat	uity	Act	dated	21st
July	1993	in	Appli	cation	(PGA)		No.96	of	1992	is
restored.		Petitio	n	is	disposed	of.	If	the	amount	is
deposited	in	this	Court	as	per	the	order	dated	8th	March

¶28

1994 passed by this Court, the Registry shall allow the

¶29

Petitioner to withdrew the said amount.

¶30

(Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.)

¶31

(Abhay S.Oka, J.)

Children'S Academy v. Smt.Indir Ramchandran and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Children'S Academy v. Smt.Indir Ramchandran and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Singh Baasraj Singh and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Safia Akbarali Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Quadir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanpal a. Tare and Ors. Vs the Cotton Textile Promotion Council and Ors.

Atlas Copco Employes Federation and Anr. Vs the Registrar of Trade Unions and Ors.

Purshottam v. Raheja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.