The Hindu : 'Teachers not covered by Payment of Gratuity Act'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 15, 2004

National

National

'Teachers not covered by Payment of Gratuity Act'

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, JAN. 14. The Supreme Court has ruled that school teachers are not covered by the definition of `employee' under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity (PG) Act, 1972 and hence are not entitled to payment of gratuity at the end of their service.

A Bench, comprising Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, gave the ruling upholding a Full Bench verdict of the Gujarat High Court stating that the Act would not apply to teachers.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari said that after comparing various definitions of the word `employee' in different enactments, "we are of the view that even on plain construction of the words and expressions used in definition clause 2(e) of the PG Act, `teachers' who are mainly employed for imparting education are not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act."

The Judges said that "teachers do not answer description of being employees who are `skilled', `semi-skilled' or `unskilled'," and hence they reject the contention that teachers should be treated as included in the expression `unskilled' or `skilled'. The provisions in the PG Act were in the nature of social security measures such as employment insurance, provident fund and pension to the wage earning population in industries, factories and establishments.

The Bench was dismissing an appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association, challenging the High Court order.

Referring to the submission that the Government, by a notification dated April 3, 1997, had extended the provision of the Gratuity Act, 1972 to educational institutions employing 10 or more persons, the Bench said only the non-teaching staff would be covered by the provisions of the Act.

"The teaching staff being not covered by the definition of `employee' can get no advantage merely because of declaring `educational institutions' as establishments," the Bench said.

Further, it pointed out that the Legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of the word `employee' in various labour laws when the PG Act was passed. If the Legislature intended to cover in the definition all kinds of employees, it could have used such wide language as contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 which defines "employee to mean any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment."

The Judges said that "our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in the very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions, which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the Legislature to take cognisance of the situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of separate legislation for them in this regard. That is a subject matter solely for the Legislature to consider and decide."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National