AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Zaveri for Respondent State. Though notices have been served on the Respondents, but they have chosen not to appear either personally or through their advocates.
In these Letter Patents Appeal/Special Civil Applications, the question that arises for consideration is whether the claim made by the Respondents who are working as teachers and employees of Blind Multipurpose Training Centre, which is an institution and it imparts education to blind students and is governed by a public trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act is amenable to provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ?
Learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would apply to the institution and therefore, gratuity has to be paid to teachers and employees as per the provisions of the Act. This question has been considered by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers'' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, has held in paragraphs 21 to 26 as under:
Having thus compared the various definition clauses of the word "employee" in different enactments, with due regard to the different aims and objects of the various labour legislations, we are of the view that even on plain construction of the words and expression used in the definition Clause 2(e) of the Act, "teachers" who are mainly employed for imparting education are not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act. Teachers do not answer description of being employees who are "skilled","semi skilled", or "unskilled". These three words used in association with each other intend to convey that a person who is "semi-skilled" may be one who falls between the two categories, meaning he is neither fully skilled nor unskilled. The Black''s Law Dictionary defines these three words as under:
Semi-skilled work.-Worm that may require some alertness and close attention, such as inspecting items or machinery for irregularities, or guarding property or people against loss of injury.
Skilled work.-Work requiring the worker to use judgments, deal with the public, analyse facts and figures, or work with abstract ideas at a high level of complexity.
Unskilled work.-Work requiring little or No. judgment, and involving simple tasks that can be learned quickly on the job.
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 or 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.)
The word "unskilled" is opposite of the word "skilled" and the word "semi-skilled" seems to describe a person who falls between the two categories i.e. he is not fully skilled and also is not completely unskilled but has some amount of skill for the work for which he is employed. The word "unskilled" cannot, therefore, be understood dissociated from the word "skilled" and "semi-skilled" to read and construe it to include in it all categories of employees irrespective of the nature of employment. If the legislature intended to cover all categories of employees for extending benefit of gratuity under the Act, specific mention of categories of employment in the definition clause was not necessary at all. Any constriction of definition clause which renders it superfluous or otiose has to be avoided.
The contention advanced that teachers should be treated as included in the expression "unskilled" or "skilled" cannot, therefore, be accepted. The teachers might have been imparted training for teaching or there may be cases where teachers who are employed in primary schools are untrained. A trained teacher is not described in the industrial field or service jurisprudence as a "skilled employee". Such adjective generally is used for an employee doing manual or technical work. Similarly, the words "semi-skilled" and "unskilled" are not understood in educational establishments as describing nature of job of untrained teachers. We do not attach much importance to the arguments advanced on the question as to whether "skilled", "semi-skilled" and "unskilled" qualify the words "manual", "supervisory", "technical" or "clerical" or the above words qualify the word "work". Even if all the words are read disjunctively or in any other manner, trained or untrained teachers do not plainly answer any of the descriptions of the nature of various employments given in the definition clause. Trained or untrained teachers are not "skilled", "semi-skilled", "unskilled", "manual", "supervisory", "technical" or "clerical" employees. They are also not employed in "managerial" or "administrative" capacity. Occasionally, even if they do some administrative work as part of their duty with teaching, since their main job is imparting education, they cannot be held employed in "managerial" or "administrative" capacity. The teachers are clearly not intended to be covered by the definition of "employee.
The legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of the word "employee" contained in various previous labour enactments when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of "employee" all kinds of employees, it could have s 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..."None-use 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.
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 regard. That is the subject-matter solely of the legislature to consider and decide.
In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be maintained.
In the result, Letters Patent Appeals and Special Civil Applications deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed.
(i) The order No. M.K.K.-Jam-95-3057 dated 15.9.1995 passed by Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jamnagar; the judgment dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Rajkot in Appeal No. 58 of 1995 in LPA No. 1098 of 1998;
(ii) order No. MMK-Jam-97-2736 dated 5.8.1997 passed by the Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jamnagar and the judgment dated 22.7.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Rajkot in Special Civil Application No. 6554 of 1998;
(iii) order dated 5.1.1998 in Gratuity Application No. 27 of 1997 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the judgment dated 3.6.1999 in Appeal No. 24 of 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajkot in Special Civil Application No. 6095 of 1999; order No. MMK-Jam-95-3053 dated 15.9.1995 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the judgment dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajkot in Appeal No. 56 of 1995 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1100 of 1998; and
(iv) order No. MMK-95-3064/3060 dated 10.9.1995 passed by the Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jamnagar and the judgment dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Rajkot in Appeal No. 57 of 1995 are hereby set aside. Rule made absolute. The parties shall bear their own costs.