RAM MEHAR KAUSHIK Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal which is directed against the order dated 7th July, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent.

(2.) By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the Head Master/Head Mistress and teachers in the MCD schools who have now retired from service would not be entitled to receive payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in Administrator, Lahidhi Multipurpose H.S.S. Vs. V.Chaturvedi (Smt.) 2006-II-LLJ 872. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are contrary to law. We are however, unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The aforesaid submission has to be examined in the light of the definition of an employee under Section 2 (e) of the Act. In Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Reported in 2004 (1) SCC 755, the Supreme Court has held that on plain construction of the words and expression used in the definition clause 2(e) of the Act, 'teachers' who are mainly employed for imparting education are not covered and are not entitled to gratuity benefits under the Act. Teachers do not answer description of being employees who are 'skilled', 'semi-skilled' or 'unskilled'. These three words used in association with each other intend to convey that a person who is 'unskilled' is one who is not 'skilled' and a person who is 'semi-skilled' may be one who falls between the two categories, meaning he is neither fully skilled nor unskilled. Thus teachers are not covered by Payment of Gratuity Act.