'Remedies Discrimination Suffered By Teachers' : Supreme Court Upholds Amendment Covering Teachers Under Payment Of Gratuity Act

The Supreme Court has upheld the amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 extending the benefit of gratuity to teachers.The amendment with retrospective effect remedies the injustice and discrimination suffered by the teachers on account of a legislative mistake, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi dismissed the appeals/writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A to the Payment of Gratuity Act, with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997 (vide the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009).The court also observed that the payment of gratuity cannot be categorized as a windfall or a bounty payable by the private schools as it is one of the minimal conditions of service.BackgroundInterpreting the definition of employee in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 755. had held that the teachers who impart education to students were not "employee" as they do not perform any kind of skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work. Later, the Gratuity Act was amended and post amendment, the Section 2(e) reads thus : "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, 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. Several private schools challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments and seven High Courts dismissed the writ petitions in this regard. In this case, the Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed against these High Court judgments and also some writ petitions filed under Article 32.The appellants/petitioners raised these two contentions: a) The legislation vide the Amendment Act 2009 overrules the judicial decision in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra) and violates the doctrine of separation of powers. (b) The retrospective amendments are unreasonable, excessive and harsh, and therefore, unconstitutional.Rejecting the first contention, the bench observed that the earlier decision in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra) had interpreted the law, that is, Section 2(e) of the PAG Act, as it then existed in the statute. "The judgment even acknowledged and prompted the legislature to enact a legislation granting the benefit of gratuity to teachers, who had been excluded because of the legal flaw. When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision.", it said.Regarding the second ground, the bench noted that, the legislature, vide the Amendment Act, 2009, has given retrospective effect to the amended provision of Section 2(e) and the newly inserted Section 13A with effect from 3rd April 1997, which is also the date of the notification issued by the Government under Section 1(3)(c), making the PAG Act applicable to the educational institutions with ten or more employees."The amendment enforces and gives effect to what was intended by the notification, but could not be achieved on account of the technical and legal defect. The lacuna, a distortion in the language that had the unwitting effect of leaving out teachers, has been rectified so as to achieve the object and purpose behind the issuance of the notification, making the PAG Act applicable to all educational institutions. The argument of the educational institutions that they have been taken by surprise is incorrect and unacceptable as the legislation had cured the inadvertent defect in a statute, as pointed out by this Court, through legislative repair. Private schools, when they claim a vested right arising from the reason of defect, should not succeed, for acceptance would be at the expense of teachers who were denied and deprived of the intended benefit. Marginal inconvenience in the form of financial outgo or difficulty is of little weight, when curing of an inadvertent defect is made retrospectively in greater public interest, which consideration will overrule the interest of one or some institutions.The court also held that the power to amend, which includes the power to amend the statute with retrospective effect, is a constitutional power vested with the legislature, which is not confined and restricted to any particular type of statutes, namely, tax statutes. Dismissing the appeals/writ petitions, the court...

'Remedies Discrimination Suffered By Teachers' : Supreme Court Upholds Amendment Covering Teachers Under Payment Of Gratuity Act

Ashok KM

Tags