Anganwadi workers entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act: Supreme Court

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday held that Anganwadi workers and helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972 [Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs District Development Officer Dahod and ors]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ajay Rastogi ruled that the Payment of Gratuity Act will be applicable to Anganwadi centres, observing that time has to come to improve the working conditions of such workers."Time has come when the Central government/State governments has to collectively consider as to whether looking to the nature of work and exponential increase in the Anganwadi centers and to ensure quality in the delivery of services and community participation and ... find out modalities in providing better service conditions of the voiceless commensurate to the nature of job discharged by them," the Court said. Justice Oka, who authored the lead judgment, stated that Anganwadi workers are currently being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central government."It is high time that the Central government and State governments take serious note of the plight of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) who are expected to render such important services to the society," Justice Oka noted in his judgment. .The Supreme Court accordingly overturned a Gujarat High Court division bench judgment tjat had ruled that Payment of Gratuity Act will not be applicable to Anganwadi centres. The order under challenge had set aside a single-judge order that affirmed orders of lower fora saying that Anganwadi workers are entitled to the payment of gratuity. The petitioners were retired Anganwadi workers and helpers based in Gujarat, who had moved the High Court on being denied gratuity after retirement. The division bench had held that anganwadi workers and helpers are not employees as per Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, and the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) cannot be said to be an industry. Therefore, remuneration or honorarium paid to them cannot be treated as wages within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the 1972 Act, and they are disentitled to gratuity, the division bench ruled. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court. .Counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1972 Act is a legislation for social security recognising the loss of work prospects due to age etc. Anganwadi centres fall under the broad definition of establishments and non-teaching staff too are entitled to gratuity as per the Supreme Court decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer and others, it was contended.Further, the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A Rajappa and others was relied on to stress that in such centres, there is a systematic and organised activity being carried out and thus it can classified as industry too in an education setup. It was also contended that the decision in State of Karnataka and others vs Ameerbi relied on by the respondent authorities and the division bench of the High Court was not applicable as that case dealt with whether their matters are to be referred to administrative tribunals. The appellants also cited the decision in Jaya Bachchan v Union of India to argue that merely because the monthly remuneration paid to Anaganwadi workers is termed an honorarium, it cannot be separated from the definition of wages as the work is full-time involving multiple duties concerning women and children..The counsel for Gujarat government highlighted the financial burden of ₹25 crore if gratuity is held to payable to all such workers in the State.Counsel for the Central government, referring to the definitions of establishments, submitted that the Anganwadi centres are not an establishment as they do not carry on any business, trade or profession but implement a welfare scheme. .Both the judges in their separate but concurring opinions emphasised the important role that Anganwadi workers and helpers play in ensuring the nutrition of young children in rural areas. The Bench observed that they have an 'onerous responsibility' of ensuring the healthy growth of children aged between 6 months and 6 years. "Gratuity, as a social welfare legislation, its effective implementation is of paramount importance to fulfil the legitimate 7 expectation of the employees. So far as the unorganized sectors are concerned, these Acts have been pillars in social security and laid the foundation for improvement in standards of living of the employees," Justice Rastogi said. The judge went on to note the 'pivotal and significant role' during played during the COVID-19 pandemic by frontline women health workers. On the problems faced by them, Justice Rastogi observed,"The first and foremost, they are not holders of civil posts due to which they are deprived of a regular salary and other benefits that are available to employees of the State. Instead of a salary, they get only a so called paltry ‘honorarium’ (much lower 24 than the minimum wages) on the specious ground that they are parttime voluntary workers, working only for about 4 hours a day."Justike Oka in his judgment said that anganwadi centres run pre-primary schools and this educational activity is an integral part of it and the duty of running the same falls on the workers. Both judges emphasised that the Ameerbai case that the High Court is not applicable particularly in light of enactment of National Food Security Act of 2013 and the Right to Education Act giving statutory status to the duties of Anganwadi workers. The use of the word 'honourary' is not determinative of their status, Justice Oka said. "Considering the nature of duties specified ... it is full-time employment," he added. Anganwadi centres, being an extended arm of the government in implementing the ICDS, is an establishment within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Contract Labour Act, Justice Oka ruled.The Court also opined that Anganwadi centres have to be viewed as a whole and not individual units, and they thus employ more than ten people to meet the definition of an establishment under the 1972 Act. The appeals were, therefore, allowed and the State of Gujarat was directed to pay the gratuity.."All eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date specified under sub-section 3A of Section 7 of the 1972 Act," the Court further directed. .Senior Advocates PV Surendranath and Sanjay Parikh appeared for the appellants along with advocates Subhash Chandran KR, Biju P Raman, Yogamaya MG, Sawan Shukla, Pyoli Swatija and Rahul Narang. Advocate Aastha Mehta appeared for State of Gujarat while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Central government. [Read Judgment]