New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday recalled an earlier order and ruled that a teacher is entitled to claim gratuity from her employer by invoking the Payment of Gratuity Act (PGA).
On 7 January, a bench comprising Justices A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra had ruled that teachers, irrespective of institutions, could not invoke the PGA since under its provisions, they were not defined as “employees”.
At the time, the court was unaware that Parliament had amended the definition of an employee to include a teacher after its 2004 judgment on a similar matter.
After hearing the matter afresh, the apex court Thursday noted that the rights of a teacher could not be affected simply because the act and the provisions under which the right was exercised was challenged and pending finality.
“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 as of now,” the court noted in its Thursday order.
The case relates to the Birla Institute of Technology (BIT) challenging a verdict passed by the Jharkhand High Court, which had ruled that an assistant professor, who had retired from the institution, was entitled to claim gratuity under the PGA, 1972.
The Supreme Court Thursday also fined the Birla Institute of Technology Rs 25,000 as costs.
Also read: Cabinet approves ordinance to junk controversial quota rule for university faculty hiring
Court had stayed earlier order within days of the ruling
On 9 January, two days after the judgment was pronounced, the court had suo motu listed the matter and stayed the order.
“Today, we have listed the matter suo motu,” the court’s order on 9 January read. “The reason being that during the course of hearing of the appeal it was not brought to the notice of the Bench that the judgment of this Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 755 on which the reliance was placed for allowing the appeal necessitated the Parliament to amend the definition of ’employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No.47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.”
“…this issue was not considered though had relevance for deciding the question involved in the appeal. It is for this reason, we prima facie find error in the judgment and, therefore, are inclined to stay the operation of our judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed in this appeal,” the apex court noted in its order.
The matter was then posted for appeal and the court heard arguments afresh.