Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order directing a school to pay balance gratuity to a retired teacher. The bench held that the teacher was covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act due to a pre-existing school scheme and distinguished cited precedents.
Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No. 439/2011 Reserved on: 13.4.2012 Decided on:21.5. 2012
…Appellants.
Versus
…Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Appellants : Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
For the Respondents: Nemo
. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1683 of 2009.
adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1 was engaged as English Teacher in appellant’s No.1 school on 1.3.1977. She retired on 31.12.2005. She was paid a sum of 68,850/- by way of gratuity on 6.6.2006. Respondent No.1 made a representation on 16.6.2006 that the entire period of 28 years and 10 months has not been taken into consideration while paying the gratuity. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority on 16.11.2006. The complaint was allowed by the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Officer on 29.12.2007. According to the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 was entitled to gratuity amount for 29 years’ service. Since respondent No.1 had already been paid a sum of 68,850/-, the Controlling Authority directed appellants to release the balance payment of ` 66,669/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour
3
of respondent No.1. Appellant No.1 preferred an appeal before the Joint Labour Commissioner-cumAppellate Authority against the order dated 29.12.2007. He allowed the same on 18.11.2008. Respondent No.1 assailed order dated 18.11.2008 by way of CWP No. 1683 of 2009. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 4.8.2011 and directed appellant No.1 school to pay the balance amount of 48,600/- to respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Learned Single Judge further ordered that the amount be paid on or before 31.10.2011, failing which school was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant No.1-school was also burdened with costs of 5,000/-. It is in these circumstances the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant No.1 and Shimla Chandigarh Educational Society through Fr. John Bosco, Principal, St. Edward’s School, Shimla.
4
by way of gesture. Mr. K.D. Sood has argued that respondent No.1 did not fall within the ambit of section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
5
8,100/-. 15 days salary works out to be 4,050/-. Learned Single Judge has applied the formula as per Annexure P-5 and held respondent No.1 to be entitled to a sum of 1,17,450/- by treating 28 years and 10 months to be 29 years. The management6
has only paid a sum of 68,850/- and the leaned Single Judge has ordered the payment of balance amount of 48,600/-. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.8.2011. The school management on its own had been paying gratuity to the teachers as per formula mentioned in Annexure P-5 dated 6.12.1990. In these circumstances, the management has framed a scheme for paying the gratuity to the teachers. Since the management had already framed a scheme and paying the gratuity to the teachers, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. K.D. Sood that respondent No.1 did not fall within the expression of section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The management had been paying the gratuity to the teachers of their own. The judgments, i.e. (2004) 1 SCC 755 and the judgment passed by this Court in case The Managing
Committee, Mohan Middle School (Now Primary School) Solan Brewery, Solan, H.P. vs. Joint Labour Commissioner relied upon by the appellant’s school are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The observation made by the learned Single Judge that the stand of the school was dishonest, are expunged.
7
analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
No costs.
( Justice R.B. Misra), Judge.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
21.5. 2012 awasthi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent teacher falls within the definition of an employee under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, given the existence of a settlement scheme?
Whether the Single Judge's order directing the appellant school to pay the balance gratuity amount for the full period of service was legally sustainable?
Whether the appellant's claim that the prior gratuity payment was made by way of gesture rather than it being settled under a scheme was acceptable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2004) 1 SCC 755Distinguished¶28
The Managing Committee, Mohan Middle School (Now Primary School) Solan Brewery, Solan, H.P. vs. Joint Labour CommissionerDistinguished¶28
1 provisions across 1 enactments
St. Edward's School, Milsington Shimla
Shimla Chandigarh Educational Society
Indu Kaushal
State of H.P.
R. B. Misra
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court