PRINCIPAL Vs. NALINI RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner-establishment is challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972 (Ernakulam) Ext.P5 thereby confirming the order dated 29/05/2017 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972. By this order, the Controlling Authority has held that respondent, Nalini Ramachandran, a teacher working with the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,50,037/- as gratuity with 10% interest from 1.04.2014.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at sufficient length of time. He has argued that the Payment of Gratuity Act came to be amended and teachers came within the purview of the term "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act with effect from 03.04.1997. The learned counsel urged that the respondent-employee has not completed 240 days of service in each year because of holidays to the school. She was appointed in the year 2006 and therefore, her claim of having been appointed in the year 1987 is totally incorrect. The learned counsel further urged that even if the case of the respondent employee is accepted, then also, at the most, she can be held entitled for gratuity from 03.04.1997 and not from 03.06.1987 as held by the Controlling Authority. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent employee has opposed the petition by contending that a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He drew my attention to the response filed by the petitioner before the Human Rights Commission, wherein it was admitted that the respondent - employee had joined her services at the School, in the year 1987.

(3.) I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused impugned order of the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Controlling Authority quantifying the gratuity payable to the respondent - employee.