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

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2530 of  2012)
MARCH 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:
s.2(e) – Appellant is a premier technical educational Institute
of repute in the country – Respondent no.4 joined the appellant-
Institute as Assistant Professor – On superannuation, he made a
claim for payment of gratuity amount – Entitlement for gratuity –
Held: The definition of “employee” as defined under s.2(e) was
amended with effect from 03.04.1997 retrospectively by Payment of
the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (No. 47 of 2009) published on
31.12.2009 – In the light of the amendment made, the benefit of the
Payment of Gratuity Act was extended to the teachers also from
03.04.1997 – In other words, the teachers were brought within the
purview of “employee” as defined in s.2(e) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective
effect from 03.04.1997 – Respondent no.4 is entitled to the payment
of gratuity – Payment of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009.
Constitution of India:
Constitutionality of a statute – Appellant is a premier technical
educational Institute – Claim made by a teacher of appellant-Institute
for payment of gratuity – Appellant challenged the applicability of
the Payment of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (No. 47 of 2009)
by which teachers were brought within the purview of “employee”
as defined in s.2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – The challenge
was on the ground that the constitutional validity of Amending Act
No. 47 of 2009 was under challenge in a writ petition, which was
pending – Held: Pendency of any writ petition by itself does not
affect the constitutionality of the Amending Act, and nor does it
affect the right of teacher in any manner in claiming gratuity amount
from the appellant(employer) under the Act – It is only when the
Court declares a Statute as ultra vires the provisions of the
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 963
963
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Constitution that the question may arise to consider its effect on the
rights of the parties and that would always depend upon the
declaration rendered by the Court and the directions given in that
case – Such was not the case in the instant matter –  Plea rejected –
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the light of the amendment made in the
definition of the word “employee” as defined in Section 2(e) of
the Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect
from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was
also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997. In other words,
the teachers were brought within the purview of “employee” as
defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending
Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.
[Paras 28, 29][973-E, F]
Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v.
Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC 755 :
[2004] 1 SCR 470 – held inapplicable.
2. The appellant urged that the constitutional validity of
Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 is under challenge in this Court in
a writ petition, which is pending.  It is only when the Court declares
a Statute as being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution
then the question may arise to consider its effect on the rights of
the parties and that would always depend upon the declaration
rendered by the Court and the directions given in that case. Such
is not the case here. [Paras 32, 34][974-B-D]
Case Law Reference
[2004] 1 SCR 470
held inapplicable
Para 1
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 L.P.A. No. 53 of 2007.
Shambo Nandy, Ms. N. Annapoorani,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Anil Kumar Jha, Sunil Roy, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. On 07.01.2019, this Court placing reliance on the decision of
this Court in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs.
Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC 755, which was
brought to the Court’s notice by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
2. However, after the pronouncement of the order in this appeal,
it came to the notice of this Court that consequent 

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