CWP-899-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (219) Chief Khalsa Diwan Charitable Society and The Educational Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali and another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Educational Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (respondent No.1) direction was passed upon the respondents, to petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within three months from the date of the award (supra), failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum the instant writ petition 2. Court, by learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, that the Education Tribunal concerned, does not have the jurisdiction to decide 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Chief Khalsa Diwan Charitable Society and Versus The Educational Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali and another . HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) The award dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P Educational Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (respondent No.1) direction was passed upon the respondents, to petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within three months from the date of the award (supra), failing which, the respondents shall be pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum the instant writ petition. The legality of the award (supra), Court, by learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, Education Tribunal concerned, does not have the jurisdiction to decide IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-899-2025 Date of Decision : 23.07.2026 Chief Khalsa Diwan Charitable Society and another …Petitioners Versus ..Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Advocate AAG, Punjab. The award dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Educational Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (respondent No.1), whereby, a direction was passed upon the respondents, to pay outstanding gratuity to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within three months from the date of the award (supra), failing which, the respondents shall be pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was put to challenge through legality of the award (supra), was challenged before this Court, by learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, on the sole ground Education Tribunal concerned, does not have the jurisdiction to decide 1 , passed by the , whereby, a pay outstanding gratuity to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within three months from the date of the award (supra), failing which, the respondents shall be s put to challenge through before this on the sole ground Education Tribunal concerned, does not have the jurisdiction to decide MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-899-2025 the issue of gratuity. He further submits that in case, the respondent No.2, has any grievance with regard to non by approaching the authorit 1972. 3. reliance upon the judgment CWP-25942 State of Punjab and others’ it has been specifically recorde the jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. that while passing the judgment (supra), placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Civil Revision No.4315 of 2012 Secondary School and another vs. Dis another’ decided 27.11.2013 Bench, to the effect jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. 4. endeavour to was an exparte petitioner/Management, to deprive the respondent No.2, from h gratuity. However, he has failed to point out any contrary judgment, or any statutory provisions, giving jurisdiction to the Education Tribunal concerned, to decide the 5. case, has observed as under : 2025 the issue of gratuity. He further submits that in case, the respondent No.2, has any grievance with regard to non-payment of gratuity, she can by approaching the authorities, constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 25942-2012 and other connected matter State of Punjab and others’ decided on 11.04.2019 it has been specifically recorded that the Educational Tribunal, does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. while passing the judgment (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Civil Revision No.4315 of 2012, titled ‘Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another vs. District Judge decided 27.11.2013, whereby, a reference was answered to the effect, that the Education Tribunal, does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.2, has made an endeavour to protect the legality of the award (supra), and submitted that it exparte award, and all efforts have been made by the petitioner/Management, to deprive the respondent No.2, from h However, he has failed to point out any contrary judgment, or any statutory provisions, giving jurisdiction to the Education Tribunal concerned, to decide the dispute appertaining to gratuity. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in , has observed as under :- the issue of gratuity. He further submits that in case, the respondent No.2, has payment of gratuity, she can raise the same under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, has placed passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2012 and other connected matter titled ‘Suresh Sharma decided on 11.04.2019 (Annexure P-7), whereby, d that the Educational Tribunal, does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. He further submits a Coordinate Bench of this Court, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Larger Bench of this Court in ‘Management of S.D. Model Senior trict Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and , whereby, a reference was answered by larger that the Education Tribunal, does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. l representing the respondent No.2, has made an the legality of the award (supra), and submitted that it , and all efforts have been made by the petitioner/Management, to deprive the respondent No.2, from her right of However, he has failed to point out any contrary judgment, or any statutory provisions, giving jurisdiction to the Education Tribunal concerned, gratuity. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Suresh Sharma (supra) 2 the issue of gratuity. He further submits that in case, the respondent No.2, has the same under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, has placed passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in vs. , whereby, d that the Educational Tribunal, does not have He further submits a Coordinate Bench of this Court, has Bench of this Court in ‘Management of S.D. Model Senior Service Tribunal and arger that the Education Tribunal, does not have the l representing the respondent No.2, has made an the legality of the award (supra), and submitted that it , and all efforts have been made by the right of However, he has failed to point out any contrary judgment, or any statutory provisions, giving jurisdiction to the Education Tribunal concerned, (supra) MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-899-2025 6. Division Bench, upon a reference, Court, whereby, Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of following two questions arise for consideration of the Larger Bench : 7. under :- 2025 “Keeping in view the above, I find force in the preliminary objections which have been raised by counsel appearing on behalf of the private aided institutions that at the first instance, the jurisdiction managing committee and its employees except in the case of claim of gratuity as being claimed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, lies with the Educational Tribunal keeping in view the provisions of the 1974 Act, as amen to time especially Section 7 hereinbefore.” The above observation was based upon the issue decided by a Bench, upon a reference, made by learned Single Bench of this whereby, a similar issue has arisen, as to whether, the Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of following two questions arise for consideration of the Larger Bench : “1. Whether the notification by the Haryana Government, latest of such notification is dated 07.05.2013, which is reiteration of the earlier notification dated 03.08.2008, empowers the Educational Tribunal to adjudicate disputes as to payment of gratuity to Teachers and whether the jurisdiction is not ousted provision of the notification purported to have been issued in the light of direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 and more particularly with reference to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act itself ? 2. Whether the Educational Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all “service disputes” other than matters arising out of disciplinary action ?” The questions (supra), were answered by the Larger Bench, as Keeping in view the above, I find force in the preliminary objections which have been raised by counsel appearing on behalf of the private aided institutions that at the first instance, the jurisdiction to try all the disputes between the managing committee and its employees except in the case of claim of gratuity as being claimed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, lies with the Educational Tribunal keeping in view the provisions of the 1974 Act, as amended from time to time especially Section 7-A sub-clause 12 as reproduced The above observation was based upon the issue decided by a made by learned Single Bench of this a similar issue has arisen, as to whether, the Education Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue of payment of gratuity. The following two questions arise for consideration of the Larger Bench :- Whether the notification by the Haryana , latest of such notification is dated 07.05.2013, which is reiteration of the earlier notification dated 03.08.2008, empowers the Educational Tribunal to adjudicate disputes as to payment of gratuity to Teachers and whether the jurisdiction is not ousted by the express provision of the notification purported to have been issued in the light of direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others (2002) 8 SCC 481 and more particularly with reference to ns of the Payment of Gratuity Act itself ? Whether the Educational Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all “service disputes” other than matters arising out of disciplinary action ?” The questions (supra), were answered by the Larger Bench, as 3 Keeping in view the above, I find force in the preliminary objections which have been raised by counsel appearing on behalf of the private aided institutions that at the first s between the managing committee and its employees except in the case of claim of gratuity as being claimed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, lies with the Educational Tribunal keeping in ded from time clause 12 as reproduced The above observation was based upon the issue decided by a made by learned Single Bench of this a similar issue has arisen, as to whether, the Education The Whether the notification by the Haryana , latest of such notification is dated 07.05.2013, which is reiteration of the earlier notification dated 03.08.2008, empowers the Educational Tribunal to adjudicate disputes as to payment of gratuity to Teachers by the express provision of the notification purported to have been issued in the light of direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A Pai & others (2002) 8 SCC 481 and more particularly with reference to Whether the Educational Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all “service disputes” other than matters arising The questions (supra), were answered by the Larger Bench, as MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-899-2025 8. declare that the impugned award jurisdiction, and is ordered to be 9. issue with regard to gratuity before the authorities constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. within a period of 30 days, from the date of re 2025 “(i) That an Educational Tribunal constituted in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), will not have the jurisdiction to decide issue of payment of gratuity, as the same is payable to the teaching and non Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (ii) In respect of second question, the notification of the State Government constituting Educational Tribunal will include all service disputes arising out of an order passed by the Management, as appealable to the Educational Tribunal. Such right to appeal is not arising in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), but in exercise of the executive powers of the State. (iii) The State Government shall consider appropriate amendments in the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 in the light of statement made by Mr. Poonia before this Court expeditiously. (iv) Since the controversy regarding the Forum for adjudication of disputes relating to payment of gratuity has been settled now, it shall be open to the aggrieved persons to seek redressal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in accordance with law, if the same is availed within two months from today. The payment deposited by the petitioners shall be subject to the decision under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the above findings, this Court has no hesitation to declare that the impugned award dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P diction, and is ordered to be set aside. However, a liberty is afforded to respondent No.2, to raise the issue with regard to gratuity before the authorities constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In case, the respondent No.2, raise this issue, within a period of 30 days, from the date of re (i) That an Educational Tribunal constituted in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), will not have the jurisdiction to decide issue of payment of gratuity, as the same is payable to the teaching and non-teaching staff in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (ii) In respect of second question, the notification of the State Government constituting Educational Tribunal will include all service disputes arising out of an order passed , as appealable to the Educational Tribunal. Such right to appeal is not arising in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), but in exercise of the executive powers of the State. (iii) The State Government shall consider appropriate endments in the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 in the light of statement made by Mr. Poonia before this (iv) Since the controversy regarding the Forum for adjudication of disputes relating to payment of gratuity has now, it shall be open to the aggrieved persons to seek redressal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in accordance with law, if the same is availed within two months from today. The payment deposited by the petitioners shall be subject to the decision of the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.” findings, this Court has no hesitation to dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-6), is without a liberty is afforded to respondent No.2, to raise the issue with regard to gratuity before the authorities constituted under the In case, the respondent No.2, raise this issue, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this 4 (i) That an Educational Tribunal constituted in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), will not have the jurisdiction to decide issue of payment of gratuity, as the same is payable teaching staff in terms of the (ii) In respect of second question, the notification of the State Government constituting Educational Tribunal will include all service disputes arising out of an order passed , as appealable to the Educational Tribunal. Such right to appeal is not arising in view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation’s case (supra), but in (iii) The State Government shall consider appropriate endments in the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 in the light of statement made by Mr. Poonia before this (iv) Since the controversy regarding the Forum for adjudication of disputes relating to payment of gratuity has now, it shall be open to the aggrieved persons to seek redressal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in accordance with law, if the same is availed within two months from today. The payment deposited by the of the Authority findings, this Court has no hesitation to , is without a liberty is afforded to respondent No.2, to raise the issue with regard to gratuity before the authorities constituted under the In case, the respondent No.2, raise this issue, ceipt of certified copy of this MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-899-2025 order, with an application for condonation of delay, disclosing therein, all the facts and circumstances, leading to passing of order by this Court, the latter shall consider the application for condonation of delay sympathe decide the issue on merits. 10. July 23, 2026 Manpreet 2025 order, with an application for condonation of delay, disclosing therein, all the facts and circumstances, leading to passing of order by this Court, the latter shall consider the application for condonation of delay sympathe decide the issue on merits. Consequently, the instant writ petition is 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable order, with an application for condonation of delay, disclosing therein, all the facts and circumstances, leading to passing of order by this Court, the latter shall consider the application for condonation of delay sympathetically, and Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 order, with an application for condonation of delay, disclosing therein, all the facts and circumstances, leading to passing of order by this Court, the latter tically, and MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.28 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment