DHANALAKSHMI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR V P RAMAMURTHI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has filed the above writ petitions, challenging the order of the first respondent, directing the payment of gratuity to the second respondent in all the three writ petitions.

(2.) The primary question raised by the management is as to whether "teacher"would be covered under the definition of "employee" as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the management is that as per the reported decision of the Supreme Court in "Ahmedabad Primary Teacher s Association -Vs- Administrative Officer, 2004 1 SCC 755 ", teachers are not covered under the definition of "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in all the writ petitions, pointed out that amendment was made to Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the year 2009, and the definition of "employee"reads as under :-