BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2530 of 2012)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) – Employee – Appellant
is a premier technical educational institute of repute in the country
– Respondent no.4 joined the appellant-Institute as Assistant
Professor and on superannuation claimed gratuity – Entitlement of
respondent no.4 to gratuity – Held: The issue involved in the instant
appeal is no longer res integra and was decided in Ahmadabad Pvt.
Primary Teachers Association, wherein it was held that since a teacher
is not an employee under s.2(e) of the Act, he has no right to invoke
the provisions of the Act for claiming gratuity under the Act from
his/her employer – In view of this principle of law, respondent No.4,
who was also a teacher and worked with the appellant as such,
was not eligible to claim gratuity amount from the appellant  under
the Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The question that had arisen for consideration
in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association was
as to whether “Teacher” could be regarded as an “employee”
under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if  so, whether he/she is entitled
to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. The two-Judge Bench examined this
question in detail. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari speaking for the
Bench held that a teacher is not an employee within the meaning
of the expression “employee” as defined under Section 2(e) of
the Act and hence he/she is not entitled to claim any gratuity
amount from his employer under the Act.  Reading this principle
of law laid down by this Court,  respondent No.4, who was also a
teacher and worked with the appellant as such, was not eligible
to claim gratuity amount from the appellant (BIT) under the Act.
[Paras 12, 13, 14 and 16][304-C-E; 308-A-B]
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 301
301
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v.
Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC 755 :
[2004] 1 SCR 470 – relied on.
2. The High Court though took note of the decision
rendered in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers
Association but erred in distinguishing it on the ground that it is
applicable only to the primary teachers working in primary schools
and since the case at hand is not a case of a primary teacher, it
has no application to this case.  The High Court failed to see that
this Court had examined the expression “teacher” qua the
expression “employee” defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and
then held that “teacher” is not an employee within the meaning
of Section 2(e) of the Act. While laying down the law, this Court
did not make any distinction between the teachers inter se and
nor made any distinction as to in which type of educational institute
the teacher is working for determining his entitlement to claim
the gratuity under the Act. The view taken by the High Court
was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the
case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association. It was based
on incorrect reading of this Court’s decision and, therefore, it
deserves to be set aside [Paras 17, 19, 20][308-B-C, E-F]
Case Law Reference
[2004] 1 SCR 470
relied on
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2530
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2008 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 53 of 2007.
Shambo Nandy, Ms. N. Annapoorani Advs. for the appellant.
Anil Kumar Jha, Sunil Roy, Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.53 of 2007 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant
herein and confirmed the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.2572 of 2005.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
2. The controversy involved in this appeal is a short one as would
be clear from the facts stated infra.
3. The appellant is a premier technical educational institute of
repute in the country.  It is known as “Birla Institute of Technology”
(BIT).
4. Respondent No.4 joined the appellant-Institute as Assistant
Professor on 16.09.1971 and superannuated on 30.11.2001 after attaining
the age of superannuation.
5. Respondent No.

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