AHMEDABAD PVT. PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 13-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AHMEDABAD PVT. PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION 
v. 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ORS. 
JANUARY 13, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKAR!, JJ.) 
Paymenl of Gratuity Act, 1972-Section 2(e)-Benejit of gratuity to 
teachers under the Act-Entitlement of-Held, not entitled as they are neither 
C skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled nor working in any managerial or 
administrative capacity-legislature never intended 10 extend the benefit of 
gratuity to teachers under the Act-Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952; 
Sectirm 2(/)-Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Section 2(i)-Payment of Bonus 
Act, 1965; Section 2(13)-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947; 2(s). 
D 
R,espondent No. 2, a teacher filed a petition before High Court 
E 
claiming the benefit of gratuity under the provisions of the payment of 
Gratuity Act, 1972. The Full Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
petition holding that the teachers are not covered by the definition of 
'employee' under section 2(e) of the Act and hence not eligible to gratuity. 
Hence the appeal by the petitioner-association. 
The appellant-association contended that a Beneficial, purposeful and 
wide interpretation should be given to the definition of 'employee' in 
section 2(e) of the Act by including teachers under the Act; that, after the 
amendment of the definition of 'employee', the benefit of the Act is given 
to all employees including those working in managerial or administrative 
capacit:y irrespective of the quantum of wages paid to them; that by a 
.-' '\ 
notification in April 1997, the Act was made applicable to educational 
~ 
,. 
institutions. 
The respondents contended that on comparative reading of the 
various definitions in different enactments in the field of labour legislation 
viz. Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Section 2(13) of the 
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident 
Funds Act, 1952 and Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a 
teacher can neither be said to be employed for skilled, semi-skilled, 
1 
unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work nor in any 
470 
~ 
AHMEDABAD PVT. PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSN. ••.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 
471 
"'· 
managerial or administrative capacity; that the teacher is engaged in A 
imparting education for intellectual or moral development of students; that 
the benefit of the Act by notification of April 1997 was given to only non-
teaching staff employed in educational institutions. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. By comparing the various definition clauses of word 
'employee' in different enactments, viz. Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages 
Act, 1948, Section 2(13) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 2(f) 
of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and Section 2(s) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with due regard to the their respective c 
different aims and objects, on plain construction of the words and 
expression used in definition clause 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 
1972, 'teachers', who are mainly employed for imparting education, are 
not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act. 
Teachers do not answer the description of being employees who are 
'skilled', 'semi-skilled' or 'unskilled'. These three words, used in D 
association with each other, intend to convey that a person who is unskilled 
~ 
is one who is not skilled and a person who is semi-skilled·may be one who 
falls between two categories meaning he is neither fully skilled nor 
unskilled. The word 'unskilled' cannot be understood and dissociated from 
the word 'skilled' and 'semi-skilled' to read and construe it to include in E 
it all categories of employees irrespective of the nature of employment. 
In construing the above mentioned three words, which are used in 
association with each other, the rule of construction noscitur a sociis may 
be applied. If the legislature intended to cover all categories of employees 
for extending benefit of gratuity under the Act, specific mention of 
categories of employment in the definition clause was not necessary at all. F 
.. 
"1 
Any construction of definition clause which renders it superfluous or otiose 
has to be avoided. 1480-A-C; 481-A, Bl 
Black's Law Dictionary; Principles of Interpretation by Justice G.P. 
Singh, (8th Edition) referred to. 
G 
A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu, 119981 4 SCC 42 
and Haryana Unrecognised School's Association v. State of Haryana, 119961 
.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.