Siddhartha Institute of Technology Vs Sri M a… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Siddhartha Institute of Technology Vs Sri M a… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the constitutional challenge to sub-section (2) of Section 1 of, and Section 13-A inserted by, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (giving retrospective effect from 03.04.1997) survives, given that the same petitioner's earlier challenge failed (W.P. No.2145/2013; W.A. No.687/2018) and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions. +3 more

Court's answer

Prayers 'A' and 'B' of WP No. 8984/2016 (declaring sub-section (2) of Section 1 of, and Section 13-A inserted by, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 unconstitutional) do not survive and stand rejected, the constitutional validity of those provisions having been upheld by the earlier judgments including that of the Apex Court.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is not maintainable against the order directing payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity: the appeal before the Appellate Authority lay only in respect of the amount in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- and was withdrawn after the Controlling Authority's order was corrected; the petitioner never questioned the direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/-.

Key takeaways

Teachers are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as held by the Apex Court in Independent Schools' Federation of India vs Union of India; there was no dispute that the petitioner was the employer and the contesting respondent the employee who had been paid wages and had completed the minimum prescribed years under Section 4 of the 1972 Act, so the employee's gratuity claim is covered under the Act.ratio¶65
The Controlling Authority's order dated 28.07.2016 was appealable under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which permits an appeal within 60 days plus 60 days' condonable delay, beyond which (120 days) the right to appeal is extinguished with no condonation; the writ petition, filed without any appeal, was dismissed along with the companion petition.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.), 06.03.2025 — W.P. Nos. 8984/2016 and 29278/2018 (L-PG) filed by Siddhartha Institute of Technology dismissed. (i) The constitutional challenge to the retrospective operation of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 — sub-section (2) of Section 1 and newly inserted Section 13-A validating the 03.04.1997 notification — was rejected: prayers 'A' and 'B' did not survive, the identical challenge having already failed in W.P. No.2145/2013 and W.A. No.687/2018, and the Supreme Court in Independent Schools' Federation of India v Union of India, (2022) 3 SCC OnLine 1113 having upheld the provisions. (ii) The challenge to the Controlling Authority's gratuity awards of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,98,015/- (with interest) was untenable: the appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act covered only the excess over Rs.10 lakh and was withdrawn; no appeal was lodged within the non-condonable 120-day window; and applying the Supreme Court's ruling, a teacher in an unaided school is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the constitutional challenge to sub-section (2) of Section 1 of, and Section 13-A inserted by, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (giving retrospective effect from 03.04.1997) survives, given that the same petitioner's earlier challenge failed (W.P. No.2145/2013; W.A. No.687/2018) and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions.¶43
The court held
Prayers 'A' and 'B' of WP No. 8984/2016 (declaring sub-section (2) of Section 1 of, and Section 13-A inserted by, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 unconstitutional) do not survive and stand rejected, the constitutional validity of those provisions having been upheld by the earlier judgments including that of the Apex Court.ratio¶50
2.
Whether the petitioner (employer) can maintain prayer 'C' challenging the Controlling Authority's order dated 29.10.2014 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 20.08.2015 directing payment of gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/-, when its appeal concerned only the amount in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- and was withdrawn.medium confidence¶44
The court held
The writ petition is not maintainable against the order directing payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity: the appeal before the Appellate Authority lay only in respect of the amount in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- and was withdrawn after the Controlling Authority's order was corrected; the petitioner never questioned the direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/-.ratio¶53
3.
Whether a teacher in an unaided school is covered under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.¶59
The court held
Teachers are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as held by the Apex Court in Independent Schools' Federation of India vs Union of India; there was no dispute that the petitioner was the employer and the contesting respondent the employee who had been paid wages and had completed the minimum prescribed years under Section 4 of the 1972 Act, so the employee's gratuity claim is covered under the Act.ratio¶65
4.
Whether the writ petition against the Controlling Authority's order dated 28.07.2016 is sustainable when it was filed without availing the statutory appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whose 120-day outer limit admits no condonation of delay.medium confidence¶58
The court held
The Controlling Authority's order dated 28.07.2016 was appealable under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which permits an appeal within 60 days plus 60 days' condonable delay, beyond which (120 days) the right to appeal is extinguished with no condonation; the writ petition, filed without any appeal, was dismissed along with the companion petition.ratio¶58