The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of its January 7 judgment by which it had held that teacher is not an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and consequently not entitled to gratuity..The matter will now be reheard..A Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra listed the case suo moto stating that the Court had not been apprised of the retrospective amendment which was brought about by the Parliament in 2009..The Supreme Court in its judgment of January 7 had placed reliance on the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 755 ] and allowed the appeal. It had held that a teacher is not entitled to gratuity under the Act..However, it failed to take note of the fact that the Parliament had amended the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act with retrospective effect from April 3, 1997..The Court, therefore, noted the same in its order today:.“Today, we have listed the matter suo motu. The reason being that during the course of hearing of the appeal it was not brought to the notice of the Bench that the judgment of this Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 755 on which the reliance was placed for allowing the appeal necessitated the Parliament to amend the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No.47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.”.Since the same was not brought to the notice of the court, the issue was not considered though it was relevant for deciding the question involved in the appeal..Thus, there is prima facie error in the judgment, the court said and proceeded to stay the operation of the judgment..“Keeping in view the amendment made in the definition of Section 2(e), which as stated above was not brought to the notice of the Bench, this issue was not considered though had relevance for deciding the question involved in the appeal. It is for this reason, we prima facie find error in the judgment and, therefore, are inclined to stay the operation of our judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed in this appeal.”.The judgment of January 2019 shall not be given effect to till the matter is reheard finally by the appropriate Bench..Read the order below.