Gujarat High Court
Manager, Panchasara Jain Derasar, ... vs Mahmadkha Gajikha Baloch on 26 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)ILLJ523GUJ
Author: G.T. Nanavati
Bench: G.T. Nanavati
JUDGMENT G.T. Nanavati, J.
1. Mahamadkha Gajikha Baloch was employed by the present petitioner-Panchasara Jain Derasar as a part-time watchman with salary of Rs. 120/- per month. According to him his services were terminated on November 9, 1986 in an illegal manner. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute, which subsequently came to be referred to the Labour Court at Kalol. The Labour Court held that the petitioner-Jain Temple is an 'industry' and as the workman's services were terminated without following the provisions of law, the termination was illegal. It, therefore, passed an award directing the temple to reinstate the workman with 50% backwages.
2. Aggrieved by the said award the Jain Derasar has filed this petition. What is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was an error to hold that the petitioner-temple is an 'industry'. He drew our attention to the reasons given by the Labour Court for holding that the petitioner-temple is an industry. The Labour Court has stated that as articles which are offered to God are sold in the temple, and as it is having income of Rs. 50,000/-per year, it is an 'industry'. For holding that articles which are offered to the God are sold in the temple, the Labour Court has relied upon the evidence of the workman. On reading the evidence of the workman we find that what he has stated is that the things which are offered to the God, are being supplied. The finding that the articles offered to the God are sold to the persons who come for Darshan is thus the result of misreading the evidence. Moreover, the workman has not stated that the income of Rs. 50,000/- is derived from the articles sold by the Trust. Even the workman has admitted that the activities which are being done in the temple are "Dharm" and "Dhyan". The witness, who was examined by the workman, has in terms admitted that except "Bhakti" and "Puja", no other activity is carried on in the temple. Thus, the Labour Court appears to have made out a new case that in the temple certain articles which are offered to the God are sold. Even if it is assumed that certain articles are sold to persons who come for "Darshan", there is no material to show that they are sold at a profit. It may be noted that on behalf of the temple the Manager was examined and not a single question regarding another alleged activity or the income derived from such activity was put to him. Thus the Labour Court has held the petitioner-temple as an 'industry' on a misreading of the evidence. The said finding, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In view of the nature of the activity carried on in the temple it cannot be said that the petitioner temple is an 'industry'.
3. Mr. Dhotre, learned advocate for the respondent, drew our attention to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of the Workmen of M/s. B. N. Debasthan Trust v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1991 - I - LLJ - 145. In that case, the Court had found that the Trust was selling "Prasada" and was making profit by carrying on that activity. The Court also found that the approach of the temple was mercenary and the activity which it was carrying on was of commercial nature. As the facts of this case are quite different, the said decision can be of no help to the respondent.
4. We, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 900/84 (Old) and (LCK) No. 57/84 (New). Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.