The above mentioned act was was passed by the parliament in order to include 'teachers' under the definition of 'employee' thereby making teachers also eligible for gratuity. The amendment was made with retrospective effect from 3rd April, 1997. Now, BHEL Shiksha Mandal, run by the Public Sector Enterprise BHEL's Bhopal Unit, has decided to include teachers also for payment of gratuity. While they are paying gratuity to non-teaching staff from their respective date of joining, they are considering the period of service of teachers only from April 1997, irrespective of the joining date. How far it is correct on the management's part to make such a decision?
My query is whether a teacher is eligible for gratuity from date of joining or 3rd April 1997, as decided by the management?
From India, Bhopal
2My query is whether a teacher is eligible for gratuity from date of joining or 3rd April 1997, as decided by the management?
From India, Bhopal
The government’s decision is absolutely right. Gratuity is meant for one’s future life. Like any other profesion, teachers also need a worry free life.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
gratuity is paybale tprior to o employee,s for lemgth of servicethey worked ,however teachers who retired as on 1stapril97 and on wards will get gratuity for which they are eligibleas per from date of joining to date ofretirement not w.e.f 1stapril1997,further to clarify,teachers werenot covered under definition of payment of gratuity act1972,afterpassing amendment approved by parliament it became act effective from 1stapril1997,so who have been retired after april1997 can now claim gratuity from their employer for the lenth of service done by them since date of joining to date of retirement.
From India, Bhopal
From India, Bhopal
Dear Mr.G.V.Menon
You have raised a very interesting point. I trust my views on the issue raised will be of help and use to you and also to several other teachers similarly placed.
As you have pointed out the definition of the term “employee” was amended by an amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act and this amendment was given retrospective effect with effect from 3-4-1997. If the contention of the management that the length of service of the teaching staff will be reckoned only from 3-4-1997 and not from their date of joining is to be accepted then , the question that arises is whether, in case any one of the non-teaching staff had joined the services of the school before 16-9-72(the date on which the original PG Act 1972 came into force) the management would not reckon his services prior to 16-9-1972. It cannot do so. For, the PG Act whether as it was originally passed or subsequently amended in the year 2009 does not specifically say that the services rendered prior to 16-9-1972 or 3-4-1977 as the case may be have to be excluded from the qualifying service rendered by the employee. In the absence of any such specific exclusion in the P.G.Act, the stand of the management is not correct. The teachers are eligible from the date of their joining the services of the educational institution.
With regards
From India, Madras
You have raised a very interesting point. I trust my views on the issue raised will be of help and use to you and also to several other teachers similarly placed.
As you have pointed out the definition of the term “employee” was amended by an amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act and this amendment was given retrospective effect with effect from 3-4-1997. If the contention of the management that the length of service of the teaching staff will be reckoned only from 3-4-1997 and not from their date of joining is to be accepted then , the question that arises is whether, in case any one of the non-teaching staff had joined the services of the school before 16-9-72(the date on which the original PG Act 1972 came into force) the management would not reckon his services prior to 16-9-1972. It cannot do so. For, the PG Act whether as it was originally passed or subsequently amended in the year 2009 does not specifically say that the services rendered prior to 16-9-1972 or 3-4-1977 as the case may be have to be excluded from the qualifying service rendered by the employee. In the absence of any such specific exclusion in the P.G.Act, the stand of the management is not correct. The teachers are eligible from the date of their joining the services of the educational institution.
With regards
From India, Madras
yes,i fully concurr with vies of Mr hariharan,in this context i filed one case before Asst,Labour commissioner &controlling Authority,Payment of gratuity Act1972,Bhopal, based on the Amendment of Payment of Gratuityact 2009 stating that Teachers are now well with in the definition of Employees and eligible for gratuity for the service rendered by teacher from date of joining april89 to date of retirement aprin 2003,The hon,controllining Authority ordered to one of schcool authorities at Bhopal M.P.for Paymentof eligible gratuity amount calculated from April89 to April2003,AppoxRs51000/and interset theron from april 89 till date of order december 2010,total amount Rs91000/appox,However ,The schcool authorities did not obeyed controlling order authorities,but ot prefer Appeal before Appellate Authority,Labour Commissiner ,Bhopal,But,the appellate Authority, gave decision for remand and returned case to controlling Authority to review with in 2months on the objection raised by council of School,that
1 No opportunity was given to defend the case,where as fact is that school advocate attended hearing and also exchanged parliament enactment papers alng with labour ministry ,Govt of India notification and other relevent papers,notification published in Law times in January 2010,further ,2/3 hearings made and case waskept reserved for order,then order directing to school for payment of gratuity was issued as mentioned above.
2 the teacher has applied directly to controlling office ,after lapse of 7years after retrement,hence time barred,whereas applicant approached several time to school authorities for payment of gratuity personally,but they did not responded.further ,prior to amendment ,december2009,private school teachers were not with the purview of definition ,in view of supreme court decision in ahmedabad primary teachers association case.Parliment therefore amended definition,and cause of action for payment of gratuity arose to teachers from the date of amenment /notification,
in my opinion ,Appellate Authority has not grannted for validity of amendment that the amendment is effective from 3rd April 1997,i.e those teachers who have retired w.e.f 3rdApril 1997 are eligible to claim gratiuty for their service period even joined before april 1997,but retired after april1997,if iam correct ,even prior to april1997 ,gratuity was payable to private teachers ,
Will you please give opinion on this case ,whether ornot appellate authority order for remand is justified,also what should be further course of action ,pldiscuss,and let us know ,if any cases have been decided in this context
From India, Bhopal
1 No opportunity was given to defend the case,where as fact is that school advocate attended hearing and also exchanged parliament enactment papers alng with labour ministry ,Govt of India notification and other relevent papers,notification published in Law times in January 2010,further ,2/3 hearings made and case waskept reserved for order,then order directing to school for payment of gratuity was issued as mentioned above.
2 the teacher has applied directly to controlling office ,after lapse of 7years after retrement,hence time barred,whereas applicant approached several time to school authorities for payment of gratuity personally,but they did not responded.further ,prior to amendment ,december2009,private school teachers were not with the purview of definition ,in view of supreme court decision in ahmedabad primary teachers association case.Parliment therefore amended definition,and cause of action for payment of gratuity arose to teachers from the date of amenment /notification,
in my opinion ,Appellate Authority has not grannted for validity of amendment that the amendment is effective from 3rd April 1997,i.e those teachers who have retired w.e.f 3rdApril 1997 are eligible to claim gratiuty for their service period even joined before april 1997,but retired after april1997,if iam correct ,even prior to april1997 ,gratuity was payable to private teachers ,
Will you please give opinion on this case ,whether ornot appellate authority order for remand is justified,also what should be further course of action ,pldiscuss,and let us know ,if any cases have been decided in this context
From India, Bhopal
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Gratuity notification amendment in definition of employees.pdf