TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in question was subject matter of the decision rendered in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association. This Court had examined the question in the light of the definition of the word employee defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as it stood then - The decision rendered in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association, therefore, led the Parliament to amend the definition of employee as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by amending Act No. 47 of 2009 on 31.12.2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997 - It is clear from the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2009 introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24.02.2009. 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 - 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. The effect of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2019 this Court delivered the judgment allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court impugned therein. Today, we have listed the matter suo motu . 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. In other words, though the definition was amended in 2009 by Act No.47 of 2009, yet the same was given retrospective effect from 03.04.1997 so as to bring the amended definition on Statute Book, from 03.04.1997. Keeping in view the amendment made in the definition of Section 2(e), which as stated above was not brought to the notice of the Bench, 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, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal afresh on its merits. 12. 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. 13. The controversy involved in this appeal is a short one as would be clear from the facts stated infra . 14. The appellant is a premier technical educational institute of repute in the country. It is known as Birla Institute of Technology (BIT). 15. Respondent No.4 joined the appellantInstitute as Assistant Professor on 16.09.1971 and superannuated on 30.11.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation. 16. Respondent No.4 then made a representation to the appellant and prayed therein for payment of gratuity amount which, according to respondent, was payable to him by the appellant under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appellant, however, declined to pay the amount of gratuity as demanded by respondent No.4. 17. Respondent No.4, therefore, filed an application before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity . 24. This is what was held in paras 22 to 26 of the decision: 22. In construing the abovementioned three words which are used in association with each other, the rule of construction noscitur a sociis may be applied. The meaning of each of these words is to be understood by the company it keeps. It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. The actual order of these three words in juxtaposition indicates that meaning of one takes colour from the other. The rule is explained differently: that meaning of doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it . [See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 8th Edn., Syn. 8, at p. 379.] 23. The word unskilled is opposite of the word skilled and the word semiskilled seems to describe a person who falls between the two categories i.e. he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of employee all kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 which defines employee to mean any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment . Nonuse of such wide language in the definition of employee in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition. 26. Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in a very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the legislature to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of 'employee' under the said Act in order to extend the benefit of gratuity to the teachers. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was introduced in Lok Sabha on the 26th November, 2007 and same was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour which made certain recommendations. After examining those recommendations, it was decided to give effect to the amendment retrospectively with effect from the 3rd April, 1997, the date on which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to educational institutions. 4. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was withdrawn and a new Bill, namely, this Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2009 having retrospective effect was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24th February, 2009. However, due to dissolution of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, the said Bill lapsed. In view of the above, it is considered necessary to bring the present Bill. 5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. NEW DELHI; The 12th November, 2009 MALLIKARJUN KHARGE. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
