Payment Of Gratuity Act Applicable To Anganwadi Workers And Helpers: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court recently held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers working in the State.

In this context, the single judge bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha quashed the memorandum dated August 11, 2023 issued by State's Social Welfare & Social Education Department to the extent that the claim of gratuity was denied to certain Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) engaged under Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS scheme) at different Anganwadi centres in Tripura.

“…it is held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the AWWs and AWHs working in the State of Tripura and the respondent Nos.1-11 are directed to make the payment of gratuity to the petitioners as per their eligibility in terms of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 along with interest @ 7% per annum computing for the period after 30 days from the respective date of their retirement till the payment is made,” the bench ordered.

The petitioners' engagement was discontinued on their retirement on different dates during the period from 2021 to 2023 after they attainted the age of 60 years. Engagement of some of the petitioners were continued by way of re-engagement even after they had attained the age of 60 years and later on same was discontinued.

All the petitioners, in the month of July, 2023 sent their respective representations to the Social Welfare Department to provide them gratuity and other post retiral benefits but the Department vide letter dated August 11, 2023 regretted the matter of gratuity.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 507, it has been decided by the Supreme Court that the AWWs and AWHs are entitled to gratuity on their retirement in addition to other post retirement benefits. It was further submitted that Anganwadi establishment comes within the definition of 'establishment' in terms of section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

On the other hand, the Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the State of Gujarat already came up with a composite scheme on the basis of one resolution dated November 25, 2019 laying down exhaustive provisions regarding selection process, eligibility criteria, minimum academic qualification, disciplinary action etc. in respect of AWWs and AWHs and based on the same, such decision was rendered in case of Maniben (supra).

It was further contended that the State of Tripura was not a party in that case, and said judgment was not a judgment passed in rem and was also not circulated to the State of Tripura for compliance and therefore, in no way, ratio of said Maniben's case can be applied in a case relating to Tripura.

Additionally it was submitted that the words 'shop or establishment' as mentioned under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1972 covers either any 'shop', or any 'establishments' where the commercial activities like a shop is carried out.

It was further argued that even if the word 'establishment' is considered separately having no connection with any kind of commercial activities, still Anganwadi centre will not come within the purview of establishment like Gujarat where separate rules/schemes in this regard are already in force and moreover only two employees [i.e. less than 10] are engaged in every Anganwadi Centre or Anganwadi Sub-Centre in Tripura.

The Government Advocate contended that if there is a scheme framed by the State, the Court can ask for implementation of the same but when there is no such definite scheme for AWWs and AWHs, the court cannot rewrite any scheme.

The question before the Court was whether the provision of Gratuity Act is applicable to the AWWs and AWHs as employed or engaged in the State of Tripura in view of the judgment of Maniben's case?

The Court noted that the Apex Court in Maniben's Case has given wider interpretation of the words 'establishment', 'employer', 'employee' and 'wages' as envisaged in 1972 Act in an extensive manner and finally came to the conclusion that the Act of 1972 will be applicable to AWWs and AWHs.

“Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the definition of 'establishment' within the meaning of law, referred the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Code on Wages, 2019 in Maniben's case to include government offices and establishments within such definition. Both the above said Acts have their application equally in Tripura and Gujarat,” the Court said.

The Court observed that pre-school education is one of the most important activity in Anganwadi centres and therefore, section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has it's relevancy in this regard, as has been discussed in Maniben's case.

It was highlighted by the Court that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules (Tripura), 2011 has been framed by the State of Tripura but no separate provision has been made therein for arrangement of such pre-school education by any institution or wing of the Government other than the said Anganwadi centres. It was noted that rather Rule 11(4)(c) of the Rules of 2011 indicates that such pre-school education is imparted in Anganwadi centres in Tripura.

“At Para 87 of Maniben's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that by a notification dated 03.4.1997, the Government of India included educational institutions as 'establishments' under clause (C) of subsection (3) of Section 1 of 1972 Act and in Anganwadi Centres purely educational activities of pre-school stage are done through AAWs and AWHs in terms of Section 11 of RTE Act. Therefore, in view of above said observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, now the Anganwadi centres also equally fall within the category of 'establishment' in terms of Section 1(3)(C) of 1972 Act,” the Court remarked.

It was highlighted by the Court that in Maniben's case, it has been observed that Anganwadi Centres have been statutorily recognised under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and such centres now perform a pivotal role in discharging statutory obligations of the state to provide nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years.

“As per the provisions of above said Act of 2013, the Anganwadi Centres now assumes statutory recognition with addition of further duties and responsibilities in due implementation of the Act, more particularly the duties as set out under Sections 4,5, and 6 of the Act. Therefore, it is an establishment or wing of the State Government through which not only the ICDS scheme is implemented, but the duties of providing pre-school education under section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the statutory obligations of providing nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, children of age group of 6 months to 6 years and of prevention of child malnutrition are also discharged under the provisions of National Food Security Act, 2013,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that the Anganwadi Centres in Tripura also comes within the purview of 'establishment' in terms of Sections 1(3)(b) & (C) of the Act of 1972.

The Court further observed that when the statute itself, by way of its logical interpretation, covers the cases of AWWs and AWHs, granting of any relief to them under the provision of Act of 1972 will not tantamount to interfere with any policy decision of the Government.

Thus, the Court quashed impugned memorandum dated August 11, 2023 of Director, Social Welfare & Social Education Department, Government of Tripura to that extent that it regretted the claim of the gratuity of the petitioners.

Case Title: Smt. Bina Rani Paul & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Trip) 4

Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 624 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order