1. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting Appeal No. 52 of 2011 and thereby confirming the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Gratuity Application No. 14 of 2011 whereby the authority directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,13,650/- with interest at 10% per annum from 01.02.2010.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 herein joined the service of the petitioner school on 16.03.1973 and superannuated on 31.05.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 herein was not entitled to any gratuity and therefore the respondent no. 1 was paid all the retiral dues except gratuity after her retirement. Being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 preferred Gratuity Application No. 14 of 2011 before the respondent no. 3 which was allowed and the petitioner was directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,13,650/- with interest at 10% per annum from 01.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no. 2 which was rejected and the order of the respondent no. 3 was confirmed.
3. Mr.
Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 1 has retired from service prior to the introduction of substituted definition of 'Employee' and therefore she is not covered under the provisions of Section 2(E) of the Act and hence not entitled to the benefit. He further submitted that the payment of huge amount of gratuity in a given case wherein the Act is not applicable would result into a heavy monetary burden on a minority institute.
4. Mr.
Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 supported the impugned orders and submitted that the same do not suffer from any infirmity on any counts. He has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Citizens Education Society, Surendranagar vs. Union of India reported in 2011(0) GLHEL-HC 225706 and another decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 727 of 2001 on 28.09.2010 and also a decision of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 3415 of 2011.
5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are made applicable to the Educational Institutions having more than 10 employees with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997. The decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent are squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. A Teacher is an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the said Act and hence the provisions of the said Act are applicable. The impugned orders are just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court.
6. In the premises aforesaid, petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top