Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."

20. With great respect, we are unable to find any reasoning and any basis in the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court except that the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Orissa is followed as if of binding precedent.

- 16 -

21. In the case of Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri (supra), the submission had been that the Temple was a body corporate under Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 and was not a Trust as held by the authorities and even otherwise, the said Act provided for payment of gratuity and the claimant had been paid his dues under the said Act, disentitling him from making further claim for benefit of gratuity under the Act of 1972. In the said decision, the Court referred to the observations of the authorities that the Industrial Disputes Act and the statute relating to Shops and Commercial Establishments include "Temple Trust" and, therefore, the temple would be included therein. However, it is difficult to find the inclusion of any Temple or the Temple Trust in the definition of 'commercial establishment' under the Act of 1961.

- 42 -

establishment as the nature of activities in the Temple are totally distinct from the activities of a commercial establishment which are specified therein.

16. He further submitted that the expression commercial establishment can also include establishments, which the State Government may by notification declare to be commercial establishment for the purpose of the said Act. There has been no notification issued by the State Government to include a temple as a commercial establishment for the purpose of the Act of 1961. He therefore contended that a temple being a place of public religious worship is a religious institution within the meaning of Section 2(27) read with Section 2(17) of the Act of 1997. That in the absence of any notification being issued under the provisions of the Act of 1961, a temple cannot be construed to be a commercial establishment under the provisions of the Act of 1961.

26. It is not in dispute that the appellant- Temple is a Notified Institution under Section 2(23) of the Act of 1997. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is a temple coming within the scope and ambit of the definition of temple under Section 2(27) of the Act of 1997. A temple is a religious institution as per Section 2(17) of the said Act. First Question:

27. The first question to be answered is, whether, the appellant temple is covered within the scope and ambit of Section 1(3) of the Act of 1972.

61. Hence, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sri Venkatramana Temple is per

- 80 -

incuriam for the reasons referred to above and hence it is set aside. Accordingly point No.2 is answered. Third Question:

62. This takes us to the next question which we have raised namely, whether the Act of 1972 being a parliamentary legislation, a central enactment dealing with Payment of Gratuity Act, could be made applicable to a Temple under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1972, as the Act of 1997 deals with Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments including a Temple in the State, which are covered under the Act of 1997 and which has received the assent of the President on 25th October 2001, in the matter of payment of gratuity.