Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Sri. Venkatramana ... vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner And The ... on 5 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(5)KARLJ311, (2008)ILLJ122KANT
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. These petitions are taken up for consideration together, since the issues involved are identical.
2. In the first of the petitions, the Trustees who manage the Sri Venkataramana Temple & Hale Mariyamma Temple, Kapu, Udupi District are the petitioners on behalf of the two temples. The challenge is to an order by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority, (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Mangalore, as well as an Order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hassan Region, Hassan, dismissing the appeal against the order of the former.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the temples are managed by the Goudasaraswatha Brahmin community, a religious denomination. And that the State has no control over the administration of these temples as there are no statutory provisions applicable to them.
4. It is stated that the third respondent was an erstwhile manager employed by the petitioners and that he had resigned from his job in the year 1994. But had proceeded to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while negating his resignation. The reference is said to have been rejected by the Labour Court. During the pendency of those proceedings, the said respondent is said to have made an application before the second respondent, claiming gratuity benefit. That application was allowed and the petitioners were called upon to pay gratuity. The same was confirmed in appeal. The petitioners are hence before this Court.
5. The second of the petitions is by the Shree Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kateel, Mangalore. It is contended therein that it is a Hindu temple which was earlier governed under the Madras Hindu and Religious Endowments Act, 1959, and now governed under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
6. It is stated that the third respondent was an employee of the temple, whose application for grant of gratuity benefit before the Controlling Authority was allowed against the temple. The same was confirmed in appeal. The petitioner is hence before this Court.
7. It is contended by the petitioners that the Payment of Gratuity Act, is not applicable to the petitioners since they are not engaged in any business, trade or profession and hence cannot be termed as an "establishment" under the Act. The Authorities have overlooked the objections raised in this regard, while considering the applications for gratuity benefit, filed by erstwhile employees. The impugned orders are hence without jurisdiction.
8. The second of the writ petitioners would add that, being a temple governed under the provisions of the KHRI&CE Act, any claim for gratuity or service benefits could have been raised only under the provisions of that Act and that the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, would have no jurisdiction. And on merits would submit that the authorities have taken into -consideration the post superannuating service in computing the total service period as being eligible for gratuity, which is wholly incorrect and against the law. It is further contended that even if the Payment of Gratuity Act were applicable to the temple, since a claim for all service benefits was also capable of being brought under the KHRI&CE Act it was necessary to examine whether the employee would derive a greater benefit under the provisions of the said Act and to have relegated him to the remedies under the same and since the exercise of examining this aspect is not undertaken the order impugned may even be to the detriment of the claimants.
9. Reliance is placed on the case of Thirumullapulli Devaswom v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1979 I LLJ 398. The Kerala High Court has held in the above case that a devaswom would not come within the purview of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, having regard to the paramount object of the institution as well as the particular functions it discharges.
10. Per contra the respondents would contend that there is no denial of the fact that the respondents were erstwhile employees of the petitioners - the only objection is to the effect that the temples are not establishments covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This, according to the respondents, has been considered by the authorities below and have held that the petitioners are liable, on the strength of precedent. Reliance is placed on the decision in Administrator, Shree Jagamath Temple, Puri, v. Jagamath Padhi 1992 Lab IC 1621. In the said case a division bench of the Orissa High Court had occasion to consider whether a temple was not an establishment with in the ambit of Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was contended therein that the temple therein was a religious institution and a body corporate, incorporated under the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, the same provided for payment of gratuity to its employees and that the claimant therein had been paid his dues in terms thereof and was hence disentitled to make any further claims. The Orissa High Court held that the meaning to be ascribed to an "establishment" could not be restricted only to commercial establishments. And that the expression would have to be construed liberally. The court has cited the observation of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mitts Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen to hold that "Gratuity" means a gift, for services rendered or return for favours received. And that the general principle underlying the gratuity scheme is that by their length of service workmen are held entitled to claim a certain sum as a retiral benefit, as held in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd v. Workmen . And further that it is an amount unconnected with any consideration and not resting upon it but given freely without recompense. It is a bounty stemming from appreciation and graciousness. And held, that it would be unconscionable to keep a temple out of the purview of the Act, more particularly when it concerns a low paid employee who had rendered years of service.
11. By way of reply the petitioners would emphasize that a temple cannot be termed as an establishment as understood under the Shops and Establishments Act and is hence outside the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
12. On these rival contentions and on a further examination of the case law, it is clear that the word "establishment" in Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not to be restricted as referring to "commercial establishments" alone. The Act has been held to apply even to institutions which were exempted under the Shops and Establishments Act (see: Principal, Bhartiya Mahavidyalaya v. Ramakrishna (1994) 2 LLJ 556). There is no doubt that a liberal construction has to be given to the expression and any institution or organization where systematic activity is carried on, by employing ten or more persons, would fell within the ambit of the provision.
13. In a temple, the main activity of facilitating devotees to offer prayers, requires the employment of personnel who render service just as they would in any other establishment. The circumstance that the profit motive is absent, in the activity in which the institution is engaged, is not material. The petitioner temples would hence fall within the purview of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. The impugned orders cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
14. The farther contention that the employee ought to have had recourse to remedies prescribed under the provisions of KHRI&CE Act, is also not tenable. The employee is certainly entitled to elect his remedy, in the absence of a bar.
15. And yet another contention as regards the computation of the actual benefit due, as the present petitions are not in the nature of appeals, even there is a factual error committed by the Authorities, it would not be a ground for the issuance of a writ at the instance of the petitioners.
16. The petitions stand dismissed.