Madras High Court
Miss M.R. Damon, Mission ... vs Rev. M.M. Raja Dass And Anr. on 10 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)CTC161, (2003)IILLJ730MAD
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned award of the 2nd respondent-Labour Court, dated 16.10.1996 passed in I.D.No.342 of 1988.
2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was appointed on 1.1.1983 as a Pastor in the Kodaikanal Mission Church, which was one of the churches established by American Advent Mission, the 2nd petitioner. The 1st respondent was also looking after the hostel of the School of Evangelism consisting of about six students. The 1st respondent was terminated on 28.7.1987. So the 1st respondent raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation failed, the matter was referred for adjudication before the 2nd respondent. The reference was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.13970/1988. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court found that the issue whether the 1st respondent is a workman or not should be gone into by the Labour Court. Subsequently, the Labour Court found that the 2nd petitioner-mission is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and the 1st respondent is a workman under the 2nd petitioner. On the basis of the said findings, the impugned award was passed and so the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Mr. T.K. Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. David Tyagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The only issue to be decided in this case is whether the 2nd petitioner-mission is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and the 1st respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act.
5. Before the 2nd respondent-Labour Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was contended that he was appointed as Warden-cum-Accounts Clerk. But as found by the 2nd respondent-Labour Court, no document was produced before the Labour Court. According to the 1st respondent, the said documents were stolen away. The 2nd respondent-Labour Court on the basis of Ex.M.1 series has come to the conclusion that since the 1st respondent was paid certain amount as salary, and so it cannot be accepted that he worked only as a Pastor, and it has to be presumed that he was working as a Warden-cum-Accounts Clerk, On that basis the 2nd respondent-Labour Court accepted the case of the 1st respondent that he is a workman. On the basis that the 2nd petitioner-mission was running a School and a Press, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it is an industry.
6. Though this Court cannot go into the correctness of the findings on the basis of insufficiency of evidence, in the present case, the findings were given by the 2nd respondent-Labour Court without any basis and so I am inclined to deal with the correctness of the findings on the basis of documents marked by the petitioner-management. I am constrained to deal with the same only to show that the findings given by the Labour Court is nothing but perverse and baseless, as the Labour Court has not dealt with the said documents filed before it.
7. Even under Ex.M.2, the 1st respondent has addressed himself as "Rev.", before his name. Even in the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent, he claims only that he was working as a Pastor and Warden and he was also looking after the accounts of the Church and the hostel attached to the Church. Exs.M.12 and M.13 would clearly establish that the 1st respondent was only working as a Pastor. Though in the claim petition, the petitioner has come forward with the plea that he was appointed as a Pastor and Warden, in the chief-examination, he has come forward with the plea that he was appointed as a Warden-cum-Accounts Clerk. Ex.M-12, written in handwriting, clearly establishes that the first respondent discharged his duty as a Pastor and not more than that. Merely because, the first respondent did some additional work, it does not mean that he has to be taken as a workman. In spite of these documents and without even considering the same, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was appointed as Warden-cum-Accounts Clerk and not as a Pastor. The said conclusion was only on the basis of Ex.W.1, the pay-slip issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner therein. Ex.W1 was only related to the payment for three months during the period of two years. The 1st respondent, admittedly, has not produced any appointment order, but he conveniently deposed that the same were stolen away. He has not even given any police complaint regarding the same. The 2nd respondent-Labour Court has given finding only believing the said version of the 1st respondent that he was appointed as a Warden and Accountant, though number of documents were filed by the petitioner-management to establish that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed as a Pastor.
8. A Pastor cannot be considered as a workman merely a letter appointing the 1st respondent as a Pastor and a letter terminating the services of the 1st respondent and so there cannot be any Master and Servant relationship between the petitioner-Church and the 1st respondent.
9. While dealing with the duties of a Pastor and his relationship with the Church, the House of Lords, in the decision in Davies v. Presbyterian Church of Wales, 1986 (1) All ER 705, have held as follows:-
"My Lords, it is possible for a man to be employed as a servant or as an independent contractor to carry out duties which are exclusively spiritual. But in the present case the pastor of the Church cannot point to any contract between himself and the Church. The book of rules does not contain terms of employment capable of being offered and accepted in the course of a religious ceremony. The duties owned by the pastor to the Church are not contractual or enforceable. A pastor is called and accepts the call. He does not devote his working life but his whole life to the Church and his religion. His duties are defined and his activities are dictated not by contract but by conscience. He is the Servant of God. If his manner of serving God is not acceptable to the Church, then his pastorate can be brought to an end by the Church in accordance with the rules. The law will ensure that a pastor is not deprived of his salaried pastorate save in accordance with the provisions of the book of rules but an industrial tribunal cannot determine whether a reasonable Church would sever the link between minister and congregation.
The duties owned by the Church to the pastor are not contractual. The law imposes on the Church a duty not to deprive a pastor of his office which carries a stipend, save in accordance with the procedures set forth in the book of rules. The law imposes on the Church a duty to administer its property in accordance with the provisions of the book of rules."
10. In view of the above discussion, the 1st respondent cannot claim as a workman under the 2nd respondent-mission. Since the 1st respondent is not a workman, I am not going into the question whether the 2nd petitioner-mission is an industry. So, the 2nd respondent-Labour Court is not correct in accepting the case of the 1st respondent that he is a workman. Hence the impugned award of the 2nd respondent-Labour Court dated 16.10.1996 is set aside and this writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.15210, 20809 and 20810 of 1997 are closed.