The Management Of St. Josephs ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Labour, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3312 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                      and
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                            W.A.No.1015 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

               This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

01.08.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12492

of 1997.

02.           The appellant is an educational society. The 2nd

respondent was employed as a School Assistant with the

appellant educational society and thereafter, the 2nd respondent

has resigned from service on 26.09.1992 and he was relieved on

30.09.1992. At the time of relieving, the appellant had paid all

the dues to the 2nd respondent. However, after receiving the

entire dues, the 2nd respondent has approached the 1st

respondent seeking payment of gratuity by filing case

No.PG/4/96 and the 1st respondent has allowed the said case

vide order dated 25.04.1997.

03. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had

contended that the Teachers are not covered under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and without appreciating the

said fact, the 1st respondent has erroneously allowed the claim

made by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel further

contended that challenging the order passed by the 1st

respondent, the appellant had filed W.P.No.12492 of 1997

before this Court and learned Single Judge vide order dated

01.08.2007 set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st

respondent, and directed the appellant to pay gratuity to the 2nd

respondent as is applicable to the Teachers working in

Government/Aided Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Learned counsel further contended that when once the learned

Single Judge has held that Teachers are not coming within the

ambit of Payment of Gratuity Act, learned Single Judge ought

not to have directed the appellant to pay gratuity to the 2nd

respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single

Judge is contrary to the law and the same is liable to be set

aside.

04. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent

contended that in pursuance of the judgment rendered by the

Apex Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v.

Administrative Officer and others1, the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972, has been amended and Teachers have been included in

the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, there are no merits

in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(2004) 1 SCC 755

05. Having considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that

since the Teachers have been included in the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed

the appellant to pay gratuity to the 2nd respondent and set aside

the order passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, We do not

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge and there are no merits in the writ appeal.

06. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

___________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,J

________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR,J Date: 04.07.2022 rkk