TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Private schoolteachers entitled to gratuity: Supreme Court

Satya Prakash New Delhi, August 31 Upholding a 2009 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Supreme Court has ruled that the benefit of gratuity would extend to teachers, including those employed in private schools. “The amendment with...
Advertisement

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, August 31

Advertisement

Upholding a 2009 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Supreme Court has ruled that the benefit of gratuity would extend to teachers, including those employed in private schools.

“The amendment with retrospective effect remedies the injustice and discrimination suffered by the teachers on account of a legislative mistake, which was understood after the pronouncement of the judgment in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association. The amendment was necessary to ensure that something which was due and payable to the teachers is not denied to them due to a defect in the statute,” a Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Upholds 2009 amendment

Advertisement

The amendment with retrospective effect remedies the injustice and discrimination suffered by the teachers on account of a legislative mistake. —SC Bench

The Bench, which also included Justice Bela M Trivedi, ordered private schools to pay employees/teachers gratuity with interest in terms of the Act within six weeks.

The order came on a petition filed by the Independent Schools’ Federation of India challenging the validity of the amendment. Earlier, the top court had in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association versus Administrative Officer & Others (2004) ruled that teachers were not “employees” as defined under the Act as they were not performing any skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work.

The Act was later amended to include teachers and the amendment was given retrospective effect to ensure that teachers were not denied something due to them under a welfare piece of legislation.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement