Allahabad High Court
Radhasoami Satsang Sabha vs Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress And Ors. on 16 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ11ALL
JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J.
1. This petition, at the instance of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Sabha) stems from a reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This reference was made to the Labour Court, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Court) and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 59 of 1978. The Court disposed of certain preliminary issues and its decision on those issues is being impugned.
2. The controversy in this Court is confined to the question whether the agriculture farm known as M/s. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Krishi Farm (hereinafter referred to as the farm) owned and run by the Sabha is an "industry" within the meaning of the Act.
3. The material averments made in the written statements filed by and on behalf of the Sabha before the Court are these. The farm is not an activity organised on the basis of employer-employee relationship.The Sabha may be the ostensible employer yet the moving force behind the activity is the supreme head of the Radhasoami faith, i.e. Sant Sat Guru. The "employee" concept is totally absent in the relationship between Sant Sat Guru and his disciples who work on the farm in the spirit of dedication emitted by spiritual motive force behind the activity and dedicate their services at the feet of the Supreme being. The disciples of Sant Sat Guru serve in the farm as Sewadharis. The disciples, numbering 359, adhere strictly to the Radhasoami faith. They have helped in converting 1200 acres of Banjar land into a green belt without receiving any remuneration or reward except in the shape of blessings of Sant Sat Guru, being coronation of "Radhasoami Dayal". The Sewadharis are not "workmen" within the meaning of the Act. No relationship of Master and servant or employer and employee exists or is postulated between the Sabha and the Sewadharis. They do not work under the superintendence of any employer. There is no disciplinary restraint over them. They are not governed by any service rules or regulations. Out of 415 persons working at the farm only 50-55 are occasionally employed as a temporary arrangement on hire for a specified period.
4. The 28 labourers (hereinafter referred to as the workmen) whose case was espoused by Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress and Sajag Khetihar Mazdoor Union, in their written statement plead: In the farm cereals and non-cereals are produced. These are marketable and are sold at profitable prices not only for the residents of Dayal Bagh, the workers of the farm, but also to the community at large in the open market at Agra. The relationship of employer-employee exists between the Sabha and the 28 workmen as they are paid wages for the services rendered by them. The religious activities which emanate from Sant Sat Guru have no connection with the industrial activity at the farm. Besides this activity, the Sabha indulges in other industrial activities viz. modern industries, tannery, textiles, Dayal Bagh Press, Shoe manufacturing industry and hosiery, etc. The 50 to 55 workmen referred to in the pleadings of the Sabha have been working at the farm permanently for a number of years and so far they are concerned they are "workmen" and for them the farm is an industry.
5. Before the Court and even in this Court both the sides relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and Ors. 1978 (1) LLJ 349. Indeed, the decisions given in that case is the last word on the subject even now. The difficulty, however, arises in the application of the various tests laid down by Krishna Iyer J.
who spoke on behalf of the majority of the Hon'ble Judges. The Court has taken into account two paragraphs of the Memorandum of Association of the Sabha, described by it as the constitution and the bye-laws of the Sabha. Those paragraphs are 2-F and 63. Paragraph 2-F reads:
"For the benefit of the Followers of the Radhasoami Faith, to found, maintain, run and/or subsidize institutions for the advancement of education-religious, moral, mental, social, cultural, scientific, technical, industrial, commercial, agricultural, medical, legal and general and to found, maintain and run establishments, workshops, farms, etc., for giving practical training in industries, trades and vocations useful to mankind".
The relevant portion of paragraph 63 reads:
"63.- The Sabha may also maintain-
(i)
(ii) An agricultural farm for producing foodgrains, etc., for Satsangis and for providing part time employment to such residents as may be in need of money for their subsistence and for imparting knowledge in modern farming.......".
The Court also notices that the farm became a life member of the Industry Owners Association, Agra. It has also noted the fact that the farm lets out its land on Sajhi. After applying the three tests emphasised in Bangalore Water Supply case, viz. v. Whether there is a systematic activity; 2. Whether this activity is organized by cooperation between employer and employee; and 3. Whether the goods and services which are produced, go to satisfy human wants and wishes; it has recorded a finding that the activity carried by the Sabha in running the farm constitutes an industry within the meaning of the Act.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Court failed to adjudicate upon the specific case set up by the Sabha that the motive of running the farm is religious and not secular. It is emphasised that though ostensibly the running of the farm is commercially oriented yet, to borrow the language of Krishna Iyer, J. as used in paragraph 126 "the establishment is oriented to a humane mission fulfilled by the men who work, not because they are paid wages, but because they share the passion for the cause and derive job satisfaction from their contribution." Emphasis is laid by the Sabha upon the declaration made by the Ashramites of Dayalbagh with a view to enrol themselves as Sewadharis. The declaration is quoted in paragraph 6 of the writ petition as follows:-
"I offer my services out of conviction, that the cause of my going to serve is pious and altruistic and these services are rendered by me at the Holy Feet of Sant Sat Guru".
It is to be noted that the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the workmen.
From a perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the Sabha examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. To the writ petition it did not annex either a certified, or a true copy of the depositions. However, by means of a supplementary affidavit true copies of the depositions of E.W.3 Guru Bux Singh, E.W.5 Saheb Prasad E.W.6 Lt. Col. Guru Bux and E.W. 8 Phool Chand Gupta have been filed. Learned counsel for the workmen made a statement that he did not intend to file any reply to the supplementary affidavit.
8. I have gone through the depositions of the aforementioned 4 witnesses more than once. On the basis of these depositions, it is open to the Sabha to contend that the facts, which emerge are these. The moving force of the activity of the Sabha is the Supreme soul of the Radhasoami faith, the Sant Sat Guru and the disciples of the Sant Sat Guru work at the farm in a spirit of dedication to the supreme being, the Sant Sat Guru of the Radhasoami faith. Satsangis and Sewadharis, men and women, have a firm belief that by rendering service at the farm in obedience of the directions and the command of the Sant Sat Guru they may attain salvation. About 359 disciples render service at the farm without any wages. They do so voluntarily. They have no inhibition of doing any kind of work in relation to the farm. The Sant Sat Guru also goes to the farm off and on and works with the Sewadharis and Satsangis there. The Satsangis and the Sewadharis have no fixed time or hour of working. They work at the farm at their own convenience and they render service at the farm not in the spirit in which an employee does so, but they are solely motivated by the fact that they are doing so for the purpose of attaining spiritual benefit. Apart from the Sewadharis and Satsangis, who work there regularly at the farm, thousands of Satsangis come to Dayalbagh at the time of Bhandaras and render service at the farm.
9. State of Bombay and Ors. v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha 1960 (1) LLJ 251 has been, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "rehabilitated" by the Bangalore Water. Supply case. In Hospital Mazdoor Sabha's case Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) which defines "industry" came up for consideration. Gajendragadkar,J. emphasises that since Section 2(j) uses words of wide denotation a line will have to be drawn in a fair and just manner so as to exclude some callings, services or undertakings. His Lordship also observes that the task of deciding as to where the line should be drawn and what limitation can be and should be reasonably implied in interpreting the wide words used in Section 2(j) is somewhat difficult.
10. Faith is the sheet-anchor of religion. Individuals or communities may adopt any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. The basis of a religion, therefore, is a system of belief of doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that'religion as conducive to their spiritual, well being. Theism is not necessarily contained in a religion. However, it cannot be said that a doctrine or belief is the sum total of a religion. Any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc., either resembling or suggestive of or akin to any specific system of belief can be termed as religion. For instance humanism can be one religion. Apart from laying down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, a religion might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress. It follows that all acts done in pursuance of religious belief are parts of religion.
11. More often than not, commercial and religious ventures are mixed up. In such a situation the task is to discern the essential part of a religion. For doing so the ascertainment of the doctrines or the tenets of any religious sect is necessary. The tenets of different sects prescribe different duties and rituals, which have a direct bearing on religious activities. All such activities would be regarded as parts of religion notwithstanding the fact they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities. Such activities cannot be classed as commercial or economic. A fortiori religious practices should be regarded as matters of religion.
12. Practices may be essential and integral part of religion. Practices may not be an essential and integral part of religion but purely secular. Practices which are regarded by the community as part of a religion should be considered as essential and integral part of a religion. Practices which spring from superstitious beliefs are extraneous and unessential accretion to a religion to be treated as purely secular. One category of a purely secular practice is where the affairs are controlled by the State. In sum an activity preponderantly religious even though commercially oriented will be out of the clutches of Section 2(j).
13. In paragraph 132 in Bangalore Water Supply case Krishna lyer, J. emphasises that for carving out an exemption from the definition of an "industry" in a case where there are employers and employees and systematic activities and production of goods and services, a totally different orientation, organisation and method is required. It is emphasised that if a philanthropic devotion is the basis for the charitable foundation or establishment, the institution is headed by one who whole-heartedly dedicates himself for the mission and pursues it with passion, attracts others into the institution not for wages but for sharing in the cause and its fulfilment then the undertaking is not "industrial". Section 2(j) is not attracted as there is no economic relationship such as is found in trade or business between the head who employs and the others who motively flock to render service. In one sense, there are no employers and employees but crusaders all. In another sense, there is no wage basis for the employment but voluntary participation in the production, inspired by lofty ideals and unmindful of remuneration, service conditions and the like. His Lordship takes the example of an Ashram or Order with a Guru or other head. In such an Ashram or Order there may be some people who take small pocket-money from the donations or takings of the institution. There may be a few scavengers and servants, a part-time auditor or accountant employed on wages. If the substantial number of participants in making available goods and services, in the substantive nature of the work, as distinguished from trivial items, is rendered by voluntary wageless 'Shishyas' it is impossible to designate the institution as an industry, notwithstanding a marginal few who are employed on a regular basis for hire. The reason is that in the crucial, substantial and substantive aspects of institutional life the nature of the relations between the participants is non-industrial. His Lordship further emphasises that one must look at the predominant character of the institution and the nature of the relations resulting in the production of goods and services. Stray-wage-earning employees do not shape the soul of an institution into an industry.
14. Paragraph 161 Krishna lyer, J. summarised his conclusions. It appears that the gist of paragraph 132 is contained in paragraph 161III(c). It will be profitable to extract the same :
"(c) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves, free or for small honoraria or like return mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness, divinity or like central personality and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship then, the institution is not an industry even if stray servants, manual or technical are hired. Such eleemosnary or like undertakings alone are exempt-not other generosity, compassion, developmental passion or project".
15. It is regrettable that the Court did not adjudicate upon the specific plea of the Sabha that its predominant object of running the farm is religious and not secular. The Court did not consider the oral evidence led by the Sabha in the light of the averments made in the written statement of the Sabha. The Court did not advert itself at all to paragraphs 132 and 161III(c) of the judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case. Having considered the matter with some anxiety, I have come to the conclusion that it will not be expedient in the interest of justice that I should appraise the oral evidence myself in the exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly when the Court did not do so at all. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned order of the court stands vitiated on this ground alone and it should be directed to give a decision in accordance with law.
16. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the workmen on paragraph 161 I(a) of the judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. which reads:
"Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element in chimerical), (ii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (nor spiritual or religious but inclusive of material) things or services geared to celestial bliss, i.e. making, on a large scale prasad or food prima facie, there is an industry' in that enterprise".
If the aforequoted paragraph is read alone and in isolation of paragraphs 132 and III(c) of paragraph 161, the conclusion can be that the farm run by the Sabha is an "industry". In paragraph 161 the conclusions arrived at by lyer, J. have been summarised. Sub-paragraphs I, II, III and IV deal with different situations. Obviously, if a particular activity falls within the circle of exception carved out by the learned Judge then that is the end of the matter and it has to be held that the particular activity is not an "industry" within the meaning of the Act.
17. The Court has made a reference to the test of predominant nature of activity. Learned counsel for the workmen too has relied upon the said test in this Court. This test has been considered by Krishna lyer, J. In paragraph 161IV(a) it reads:
"IV(a) where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not 'workmen' as in the University of Delhi case A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1972 or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nag-pur A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 675, will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be 'industry' although those who are not 'workmen' by definition may not benefit by the status".
Earlier in paragraphs 117 to 119 the learned Judge dealt with the cases of University of Delhi and the Corporation of Nagpur. His Lordships emphasised that it is one thing to say that an institution is not an "industry". It is altogether another thing to say that a large number of its employees are not "workmen" and they cannot, therefore, avail the benefit of the Act and so the institution ceases to be an industry. The test is not the predominant number of employees who enjoy the benefit of the Act. The true test is the predominant nature of the activity. A distinction has to be maintained between the numerical strength of the personnel and the nature of the activity. The two should not be mixed up.
18. The respondent workmen can succeed in demonstrating that the farm is an "industry" by the application of the predominant nature activity test only if they can establish that the Sabha indulges in a number of activities some of which fall within the category of "industry" and do not qualify for exemption. Further, the workmen will have to establish that the activities which are not exempt predominate the activities which are exempt from the purview of Section 2(j). It is in evidence led by the Sabha that a good number of commercial activities carried on by it (the Sabha) have been closed down. Again, we find that the Court did not advert itself to the aforesaid question and did not make any attempt to apply the predominant nature of activity test after ascertaining the basic facts upon which such a doctrine can operate.
19. To sum up the Court failed to consider the case of the petitioner that the farm cannot be considered to be an "industry" in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in 1960-I Lab LJ 251 in paragraph 132 read with paragraph 161III(c). Likewise, the case of the workmen that the predominant nature of the activity test, as laid down in paragraph 161IV(a) was applicable was not examined by the Court in the correct perspective as highlighted above. The submission made on behalf of the workmen that the case is squarely covered by the dictum as contained in paragraph 161 ! (a) is repelled. Therefore, the Court will have to give a fresh decision on the material on the record.
20. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Labour Court dated 17th June, 1982, is quashed, insofar as it relates to the issue No. I alone. The findings of the Court on issues No. 2. 3 and 4 are sustained. The Court shall proceed to dispose of the issue No. 1 along with other remaining issues. While deciding the issue No. 1, the Court will be free to make its own appraisal of the material on record and will not be influenced in any manner by the observations made by me insofar as they relate to the appraisal of evidence or material. Otherwise, the Court shall decide the issue No. 1 in the light of the observations made above. As emphasised by the Supreme Court times out of number, the Court shall dispose of all the issues together and give its award. The Court shall act very expeditiously.
21. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.