Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Decided
9 January 2019
Judges listed
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, R. SUBHASH REDDY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 310 · 2019 INSC 1413

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

On 07.01.2019 this Court delivered the judgment allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court impugned therein.

p. 311, margin A

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.

p. 311, margin B

In other words, though the definition was amended in 2009 by Act No.47 of 2009, yet the same was given retrospective effect from 03.04.1997 so as to bring the amended definition on Statute Book, from 03.04.1997.

p. 311, margin C

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

p. 311, margin D

The judgment dated 07.01.2019 shall not be given effect to till the matter is reheard finally by the appropriate Bench.

p. 311, margin E

The Registry is directed to list this matter for rehearing before the appropriate Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra as early as possible.

p. 311, margin E