The question arose for consideration in the case of
Ahmadabad Private Primary Teachers Association as to whether "teacher"
could be regarded as an "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Act and,
if so, whether he is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. The two-Judge Bench examined
this question in detail. Justice Dharmadhikari speaking for the Bench held that
a teacher is not an employee within the meaning of the expression
"employee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and hence he
is not entitled to claim any100 gratuity amount from his employer under the Act. In other
words, it was held that since a teacher is not120 an employee under Section 2(e) of
the Act, he has no right to invoke the provisions of the Act for claiming
gratuity under the Act from his employer. On behalf of the Municipal
Corporation, it is contended that the only beneficial effect of the notification
issued under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act of 1972, is that such non-teaching
staff of educational institutions as answer the description of
any of the employments contained in the200 definition clause 2(e), would be covered by the provisions of the
Act. The teaching staff being not covered by the definition of
"employee" can get no advantage merely because by notification,
"educational institutions" as establishments are covered240 by the provisions of the Act.
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, the Bench held the view that
even on plain construction of the words and expression used in the definition
clause 2(e) of the Act, "teachers"300 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 "unskilled" is one who is not "skilled" and a360 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. Semi-skilled
work is work that may require some alertness and close400 attention, such as inspecting
items or machinery for irregularities, or guarding property or people
against loss or injury. Skilled work is work requiring the worker to use
judgment, deal with the public, analyze facts and figures, or
work with abstract ideas at a high level of complexity. Unskilled work is work
requiring little or no judgment, and involving simple tasks that can be learned
quickly on the job.
In construing the above-mentioned three words which are
used in association480 with each other, the rule of construction may be applied. As per
the rule of construction, the meaning of an500 unclear or ambiguous word
in a statute or contract should be determined by considering the words with
which it is associated in the context. It is a legitimate rule of
construction to construe words in an Act of 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 word
"unskilled" is opposite of the word "skilled" and the word
"semi-skilled" seems to describe a person who falls between the two
categories which means he is not fully skilled and600 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 8 was not necessary at all. Any
construction of definition clause which renders it superfluous has to be
avoided.700
The contention
that teachers should be treated as included in the expression
"unskilled" or "skilled" cannot, therefore, be accepted.
The720 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 the800 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 alternatively or in any other manner,840 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 their900 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 in960 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of
"employee" all kinds of employees, it could have as well used
such wide language as is contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident
Funds Act,1000 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." Non-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. 1067
The Bench held that their conclusion should not be misunderstood
that teachers although1080 engaged in a very noble profession of educating young generation should
not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already1100 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.1176
