(1.) Shri Shobitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By the order impugned the authority competent directed to make the payment of the remaining amount of the gratuity to the petitioner along with interest which was confirmed by the appellate authority.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondent being teacher do not fall within the definition of the workman or the employee as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, adjudication made by the competent authority is not warranted. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1426. However, it is submitted that the order passed is without jurisdiction more so in terms of the agreement entered into between the representatives of the management (Annexure-P/2) after attaining the age of superannuation ?rd of amount of gratuity be paid to them and ?rd of the amount be utilized for the betterment of the School. Therefore, in terms of the said agreement respondent is not entitle to claim any amount.