SETH SOORAJMAL JALAN BALIKA VIDYALAYA Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the school authority has challenged the order dated February 25, 2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing payment of Rs. 35,611.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 10% towards gratuity payable to the private respondent who was admittedly a teacher of the school.

(2.) Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that a teacher of a school is not an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and as such the authority below exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order impugned herein by conferring monetary benefit to the private respondent which she is not authorised to get under law. Mr. Biswas in this connection relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ms. A Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Duman and Diu & Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 1700 : 1988 (4) SCC 42 : 1989-I-LU-61. He also relies upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1966 SC 2108. Mr. Biswas finally places reliance upon the decision of a learned single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Ved Prakash Pathak Nirala v. State of Bihar & Ors. 1999-II-LLJ-1420.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has opposed this application with vehemence and has contended that the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by Mr. Biswas are not applicable to a proceeding under the Act in view of the Notification dated April 3, 1997 by virtue of which Educational Institutions in which 10 or more persons are employed have been brought within the meaning of 'establishment' appearing in Section 2(e) of the Act. In other words, Mr. Chakraborty contends that in view of publication of such subsequent notification, the schools where 10 or more persons are employed should be held to be an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the said Act. Such being the position, Mr. Chakraborty continues, the teacher of such a school must be held to be an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the aforesaid Act.