Delhi District Court
Sh. Suresh Chand vs M/S. Manas Mandir on 30 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT No.XVII
ROOM NO. 46 :KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
DID No.77/09.
Unique ID No.02402C0257152009.
Sh. Suresh Chand
S/o Sh. Nanu Ram Sharma,
Through : All India Foodgrain Kirana Chemical
And General Works Federation (Regd.),
100 Tilak Bazar, Delhi110006.
..............Workman
Vs.
M/s. Manas Mandir,
341011, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi05.
Through 1. Jai Narayan Khandelwal (Pradhan)
2. Ganesh Dwivedi (Mahamantri)
............. Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.08.2009.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 28.05.2015.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 30.05.2015.
A W A R D :
1. This is a direct industrial dispute filed by the workman
under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred as "the Act") for reinstatement with continuity
DID No.77/09. 1/14
of service and full back wages.
2. Claimant's case is that he was appointed by the
management on 14.07.1998 as Assistant Pujari and he worked
honestly and diligently, but the management was not issuing him
appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, overtime
charges etc., for which he was demanding long. Aggrieved by the
persistent demands, the management did not pay the earned wages
and ultimately turned him out on 15.11.08 after obtaining
signatures on some blank papers and vouchers etc.
3. The written statement is to the effect that management
is a temple engaged in religious activities and hence does not fall in
the ambit of definition of industry. Claimant was a Pujari and he
is not a workman as per definition of Section 2(s) of the Act.
4. Following issues were framed on 12.11.2010:
a) Whether the management is not an industry,
being a temple as contended by the
management?
b) Whether the claimant proves that he is a
workman?
c) If the answers to issues 1 & 2 are in favour of
the workman, whether the workman further
DID No.77/09. 2/14
proves that he was terminated illegally on
15.11.2008, if so, what relief?
5. To prove his case, claimant tendered his affidavit in
evidence as Ex. WW1/A stating all the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. He relied upon demand notice sent to the
management through union as Ex. WW1/1, complaint to SHO PS
Desh Bandhu Gupta Road as Ex. WW1/3, certificate dated
05.10.04 issued by Mahamantri of the management as Mark A in
which claimant has been shown as Pujari, termination letter of
service dated 08.11.08 as Mark C, Mark B is photocopy of his
election identity card.
The management did not examine any witness.
ISSUE NO. (a)
6. Ld. ARM argued that management is engaged only in
religious activities. It is not doing any business of profit or loss.
So it is not an industry within the definition of Act. He drew the
attention of the Court towards following deposition by WW1 /
claimant :
It is correct that respondent is a mandir / temple...
It is correct that except for puja no other work is being done by the respondent. It is correct that management is engaged in religious activities such as satsang and havan etc. only... It is correct DID No.77/09. 3/14 that respondent is not engaged in any business activities.
Similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Aseem Abas Vs. Rajghat Samadhi Committee & Anr., 2012 LLR 520 DHC and following was the response of the Hon'ble High Court :
5. Our research shows:
(i) That a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. commissioner of Labour, MANU/AP/0197/1977 faced with the question whether the Tirumala Tirupat Davasthanam which had employed certain workmen could be held to be an industry and finding that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam consisted of a group of religious institutions in Tirumalai and Tirupathi together regarded as one religious institution for the purposes of Charitable and Religious Endowments Act and that its main function was to arrange for the worship in its temples and to enable the pilgrims from all parts of India to visit temples and offer their prayers, held the same to be essentially a religious institution.
It was further held that even though having regard to the enormous flow of pilgrims throughout the year, the Devasthanam has to maintain several departments viz, Transport Department for the convenience of the pilgrims, there could be no doubt that the essential character of the institution was that DID No.77/09. 4/14 of a religious institution. It was held that in the circumstances, the Devasthanam could not be regarded as an industry within the meaning of Trade Unions Act. Reliance was placed on Workmen vs. Madras Pinjrapole, 1962II MANU/TN/0031/1963 laying down that where the activity in its essence is religious or spiritual, for instance a temple or church, it could not be considered as an industry
(ii) The High Court of Punjab & Haryana also in Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee of Management Gurudwara Dukh Nivaran Sahib v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, MANU/PH/0700/2003 held the Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee to be not a commercial organization and not in the business of distribution of goods and services which satisfy human wants and the working of the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee to be spiritual and religious with the objective to supervise and control the notified Sikh Gurdwaras under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act and not to be an industry. It was further held that distribution of Karah Parshad and operation of free kitchen i.e. Langar would not bring the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was observed that the functions performed by the Committee were purely religious.
(iii)A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Harihar Bahinipaty Vs. State of DID No.77/09. 5/14 Orissa MANU/OR/0014/1966 was also faced with the question whether the employees of the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee form an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that Jagannath Temple is a spiritual institution with Lord Jagannath as the presiding Deity of the temple; the pilgrims visit the place for their spiritual benefit; the offerings that the pilgrims make to the deity are primarily by way of oblation to the deity although ultimately the offerings are sold to the public; that the predominant function of the temple was for spiritual benefit. Considered from all these aspects, it was held that Jagannath temple could not be an industry. It may be mentioned that the management of the Jagannath temple also under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act vested in the body constituted under the said Act. The Court held that institutions where spiritual rather than material needs were met / fulfilled could not be treated as an industry. It was further observed that a distinction has to be carved out of the need for maintenance of order, discipline, hygienic conditions and standard of cleanliness in such institution and if in aid thereof some systems were followed that alone would not make such an institution as an industry. Distinction was carved out between security personnel deployed for maintenance of law and order at public places and at such institutions. It was yet further held that when the main objective is DID No.77/09. 6/14 spiritual, retaining the services of security personnel for keeping order and discipline and looking after the convenience of the pilgrims cannot convert such an institution into an industry.
(iv) The High Court of Kerala in Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty Vs. State of Kerala MANU/KE/0235/2004 held that a temple managed by the trustee would not fall within the definition of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and the dispute between the temple employee and the temple management is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act. It was further observed that activities carried on in a temple are purely of a religious nature and the temple has to function in an atmosphere different from that of an industrial and commercial undertaking.
v) Mention may also be made of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt MANU/SC/0136/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 282 though not concerned with I.D. Act but observing that tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day and that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or ablations to the sacred fire, all these DID No.77/09. 7/14 would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion only.
(vi) That brings us to Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. R. Rajappa MANU/SC/0257/1978 : AIR 1978 SC 548; even while laying down the "Triple Test", of whether systematic activity is carried out, which is organized by cooperation between employer and employee and for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes, it was clarified in the majority judgment authored by Krishna Iyer, J. that the test of production and / or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes would exclude the activities which would be spiritual or religious. Chief Justice M.H. Beg who concurred with the majority judgment by penning down separate opinion also in no uncertain terms excluded such an activity by observing that the services which are rendered purely for the satisfaction of spiritual or psychological urges of persons would be excluded.
6. RSC is akin to religious or spiritual in institutions discussed in judgments supra DID No.77/09. 8/14 with which we concur and follow and which have never been considered an industry within the meaning of I.D. Act. By no means can activities of RSC be treated as activity which would be "res commercium". In fact Beg, C.J. in Bangalore WaterSupply & Sewerage Board (supra) had observed that the question of workmen of such religious and spiritual institutions raising disputes should not arise. It is rather unfortunate that the appellants have raised these disputes against the Committee managing and administering the Samadhi of the apostle of peace and harmony.
7. In Radhakrishna Bhakta Vs. Subramanya Shastri & Anr. 2006 LLR 403, the claimant was a priest in Sri Radhakrishna Bhakta Mandir Trust and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka held as under: "3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ appeal deserves to succeed. Having regard to the definition of 'industry' in Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act we are of the view that any activity which could be described as an industry has to be either trade or business or any other activity analogous thereto. A temple which is visited by the devotees by reason of faith cannot by any process of reasoning be said to be an activity analogous to trade or business. We are of the view that the State Government was right DID No.77/09. 9/14 in declining the reference. While doing so it relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a Kesava Bhatt v. Sree Ram Ambalam Trust MANU/KE/0137/1988 wherein Archak or a priest in a temple was held not to be a "workman" within the meaning of the Act as he cannot be said to be doing any manual or clerical services to the devotees of the temple. The temple was held not to be an industry within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. We have carefully gone through this judgment and are in agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge".
8. In Asit Baran Modak Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour court, Deoghar and Another 2008 LLR 379, the workman had claimed that he was working with Deoghar Satsang and following was held by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court : "34. The sole object of the Satsangh is to spread the message of their Guru. The main activity through the printing books and literature and distributing at the cost price is to spread the message to Society. This main activity does not amount to trade or business.
35. The activity of publishing and selling literature books or preparation under the formulas enunciated by the Guru is obviously incidental or ancillary to the main activity of spreading message of Anukul Chandra, their Guru and not to do any business.
DID No.77/09. 10/1436. The Memorandum of Association and the objects contained therein would make it clear that Satsangh was not established with an intention of carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods.
37. This being the position, it cannot be said that the Satsangh carries out the business of selling and supplying goods so as to fall within the definition of Industry.
38. The workman, the petitioner herein can succeed in demonstrating that the Satsangh is an industry only if he establishes that the Satsangh indulges in a number of activities including the activities which fall within the category of industry. Further the workman shall have to establish that the activities which are not exempt, predominate the activities which are exempt within the purview, of Section 2(j) of the Act. As held by the Labour Court, this has not been established".
9. A similar dispute arose before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee of Management Gurudwara Dakhhwaran Sahib, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala 2004 LLR 60 and response of the Hon'ble High Court was as under : "15. Distribution of Karah Parshad and by opening up free kitchen, i.e. Langar would DID No.77/09. 11/14 not bring the Committee under the purview of Industrial Dispute Act. Purely religious functions are being performed by the Committee, at times by paid employees and at times by free services by the devotees."
10. In view of deposition in para No. 1 of examination in chief and his cross examination and taking into account, the above citations, it is held that management is not an industry because it was engaged only in religious activities. The issue is decided in favour of the management.
ISSUE NO. (b).
11. Ld. ARM argued that Pujari is not a workman as per definition of workman contained in Section 2(s) of the Act. He drew the attention of the court towards following cross examination of WW1 : "...It is correct that I was working as a Pujari doing pooja in the Mandir. I was not doing any work."
12. A similar dispute arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) Vs. Durga Prasad & Ors. 2006 LLR 1241 and the Hon'ble High Court held as under : DID No.77/09. 12/14 "7.The Tribunal has not disclosed in its order how Pujari has not been considered as a workman. A Pujari in a temple cannot be a workman. Only those persons who are covered under the definition of Section 2(s) a workman is supposed to be one who does any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, it is clear that a Pujari in a temple does not do any manual, unskilled, technical, operation, clerical or supervisory work. Pooja by a Pujari is an application of his knowledge of religious hymens and bhajans and aarties which he has to recite in the temple. This work cannot be considered by any stretch of imagination a work specified in Section 2(s) of the Act. The Tribunal has misdirected itself by considering a Pujari as a workman. The other workman was working as a Chowkidar. Since the activities of the petitioner were not only confined to running temple but petitioner was involved in other charitable activities, I consider that the Tribunal has rightly held that petitioner was covered under the definition of the industry as presently known."
13. It has been admitted by the claimant himself that he was working as a Pujari with the management. He clarified in cross examination that except pooja, he used to do nothing while he was in the employment of the management. He was not doing any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. Taking into account his deposition and above DID No.77/09. 13/14 citation, it is held that claimant was not a workman. This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO. (c)
14. The wordings of this issue show that it requires decision only if issue Nos. a & b are decided in favour of the claimant. Both those issues have been decided against him and in favour of the management. So, it is held that termination of services of the workman was not illegal, because he was not a workman and management is also not an industry. This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
Relief.
15. Consequent to decisions on issue Nos. a, b & c, statement of claim is dismissed. Claimant is not entitled to any relief. Parties to bear their own costs. Award is passed accordingly.
16. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 30.05.2015. POLCXVII/KKD, DELHI.
DID No.77/09. 14/14