Dear Khola,
Actually, it was the case titled as Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer and others that led to the amendment on the above subject, decided by our Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the definition of 'employee' was extended to cover all kinds of employees, it could have used language as wide as that in clause (f) of section 2 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This clause 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. It was held that the non-use of such wide language in the definition of 'employee' under clause (e) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reinforces the conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the said definition.
This observation paved the way to revise the definition of the word "employee." Subsequent to that, a bill for amendment was introduced in Lok Sabha and finally passed by both houses, notified in the official Gazette of India in December 2009.
After that, there is no confusion on this issue, and it is now clear that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to teachers as well.