Payment Of Gratuity Act| Teachers Come Within The Preview of 'Employee' U/S 2(e): Kerala High Court

Since the provisions of the Act have been made applicable to educational institutions as per the notification issued by the Central Government in the exercise of the powers conferred under clause (c) of sub-section 3 of section 1 of the Act, Cochin University of Science and Technology, an educational institution, is an establishment under section 1(3) (c) of the Act.

The petition was filed by Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) challenging the orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority in favour of the respondent finding that he is entitled to gratuity for the service rendered, stating that there is no error of law or error of fact to interfere with the impugned orders.

Advocate Aravindakshan Pillay, the standing counsel for the university, contented that the university is not an establishment under Section 1(3) (c) or an employer under section 2(f). Furthermore, it was argued that the respondent is not an employee under section Section 2(e) of the Act.

Another contention raised by the petitioner was that the respondent was appointed on a contract basis which was extended on the execution of fresh contracts. He has not worked for 240 days for any period of one year as contemplated under section 2A of the Act. It is also contended that no sufficient cause for delay was shown by the respondent before the controlling authority.

Section 1(3)(c) of the Act reads as follows:

"It (the Act) shall apply to - (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, or, any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."

The Court noted that in the exercise of the power conferred in this section, the central government has extended the provisions of the Act to educational institutions employing ten or more persons per a notification dated 3^rd April 1997.

Therefore, the Judge observed that since the provisions of the Act have been made applicable to educational institutions as per the notification issued by the Central Government in the exercise of the powers conferred under section 1(3)(c) of the Act, Cochin University of Science and Technology, an educational institution, is an establishment under this section.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand & others, in which the court interpreted section 2(e) of the Act, as amended by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 and held that teachers would come within the purview of "employee" as defined in the Act, the court opined that since the respondent was appointed as a professor on contract basis by the university for a period of 10 years, he comes within the definition of employee under S. 2(e) of the Act and employed for wages as defined under S. 2(s) of the Act and was not an apprentice.

Justice Purushothaman pointed out that the Act only intended to exclude the applicability of the provision of the Act only in the case of apprentices.

The controlling authority and the appellate authority from the evidence adduced by the respondent had found that the respondent indeed has continuous service as defined in S. 2A read with sub section 2 (ii).

Further, both the controlling and appellate authorities have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. Thereby, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Dr P. V. Sasikumar 

Citatiton: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 339