Summary
The Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment denying a teacher gratuity because it had overlooked the 2009 amendment retrospectively expanding “employee” from 3 April 1997. On rehearing it dismissed the Institute’s appeal, upheld the teacher’s gratuity entitlement and imposed Rs 25,000 costs.
Issues
- Whether overlooking the retrospective statutory amendment justified recall.
- Whether the amended definition covered the respondent teacher despite the earlier contrary precedent.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(e), amended by Act 47 of 2009, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972The expanded definition retrospectively covered teachers from 3 April 1997, displacing the earlier exclusion under the narrower definition. (¶ 23–31)
Held
- The omitted amendment directly affected the controversy and constituted an error apparent requiring recall of the 7 January 2019 judgment and restoration of the appeal for merits disposal. (¶ 6–11)
- The teacher’s claim was governed by the retrospectively amended definition. Reliance on Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association, interpreting the earlier definition, could not defeat that entitlement. (¶ 25–31)
- Pendency of a constitutional challenge did not itself invalidate the amendment or prevent the teacher claiming gratuity. Any later declaration and its consequences would depend on that court’s actual directions. (¶ 32–34)
Result
Judgment of 7 January 2019 recalled; appeal restored and reheard, then dismissed. Gratuity entitlement upheld with Rs 25,000 costs payable by the Institute to the teacher.