REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GENERAL EDUCATION ACADEMY Appellant

V/S

SUDHA VASUDEO DESAI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MISS A.SUNDARAMBAL V. GOVERNMENT OF GOA [REFERRED TO]
D.V.KAPOOR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA DEVA V. ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
R.KAPUR V. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION PAINTING AND PUBLICATION I.T. [REFERRED TO]
H.R.ADYANTHAYA V. SANDOZ (I) LTD [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH PATHAK NIRALA V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY L.MEHROTRA V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD,GANGAPUR CITY V. SALIM KHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. LABOUR COURT,JULLUNDER [REFERRED TO]
B P HIRA WORKS MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY PAREL BOMBAY VS. C M PRADHAN [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL TALKIES HYDERABAD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SOM PRAKASH REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M PADMANABHAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER JAIPUR VS. NARAINIUDYOG [REFERRED TO]
M R F LIMITED VS. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY H S E B VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. RAM KRISHNA VYAS [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZAHEERUDDIN SIDDIQUI VS. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL A M U [REFERRED TO]
C B PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY PATNAGAR NAINATAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ARASURI AMBAJIMATA MANDIR DEVSTHAN TRUST VS. JOITABHAI A PATEL SHRAMJIVI GENERAL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
GREEN WOOD SCHOOL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NALLAMADAN S.D. V. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,TOWN PANCHAYAT SHRI VAIGUNDAM [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL BHARTIYA MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. RAMAKRISHNA WASUDEO LAHUDKAR [REFERRED TO]
PREMLATA DIGAMBAR RAODEO VS. PRINCIPAL ST PHELOMINES CONVENT HIGH [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND CHOKDAYAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner employers of the school teachers are denying the claim of gratuity to their retired teachers on the ground that they were not "the employees" as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as they were not doing "any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. . . . . . ".

(2.) THERE is no dispute over the facts. The petitioners are a recognised unaided primary/secondary school established in the year 1963 and managed by the Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is an admitted fact that the respondents school teachers were in the employment of the school as shown below :-

(3.) THERE is also no dispute that their services were meritorious and they were loyal to the management throughout. In the evening of their life, after superannuation, they needed the reward of gratuity as a matter of right under the Payment of Gratuity Act and of course, not as a bounty and therefore they approached the petitioners for gratuity but they received a puzzling reply from the management that they were not entitled to gratuity as they were not "employees" under the Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

GENERAL EDUCATION ACADEMY Vs. SUDHA VASUDEO DESAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address