(1.) The petitioners' grievance is over the newly substituted Section 2(e) and the newly inserted Section 13-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the said Act' for short). The amendments in question are brought about by Act 47 of 2009. The challenge is mainly to the retrospective operation making it enforceable with effect from 3.4.1997. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the said Act directing the payment of gratuity to the teachers. Some of them have approached this Court on receiving the notice, issued by the Controlling Authority, pursuant to the claims preferred by the employees.
(2.) Sri K.V.Dhananjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.14083/2011 submits that the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 cannot traverse backward in time for a period of 12 years. It cannot confer gratuity upon the teachers, who have retired prior to the coming into force of the said amendment, dated 31.12.2009.
(3.) He submits that the insertion of Section 13-A is only for validating the payment of gratuity already paid by an employer under the mistaken impression of the legal requirement. But it cannot be understood that a teacher, who has already retired as on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act should be recalled and be rendered eligible and entitled to receive the gratuity.