Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Harihar Bahinipaty And Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 3 March, 1965

Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey vs Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal ... on 16 February, 2026

16. After the above observations, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Harihar Bahinipaty vs. State of Orissa, reported in 1965 10 FLR 313 wherein, the issue whether the management of the Puri Jagannath Temple and its workmen comes under the purview of the I.D. Act or not was considered and the Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the real precedence rendered on the subject, held as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 December, 2019

In fact, the above judgment of the Orissa High Court in Harihar Bahinipaty's case (2 supra) was also quoted with approval in this judgment by the Division Bench of this High Court. However, the Division Bench of this High Court held that although the Devasthanam as a whole cannot be regarded as an industry, if any separate departments like Electricity, Water and Transport Departments are maintained by the Devasthanam, those departments as a single unit can be regarded as an industry or analogous to an industry and employees in those departments would be the workmen within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C M Roy - Full Document

Batai Chittamma vs Revenue Officer-Cum-Tahasildar, ... on 18 August, 1989

The facts involved in Harihar Panda's case, (1985 (59) Cut LT 537) (supra) are somewhat similar to the facts of these cases. In the present case, we find the appeal was not presented within the time prescribed. The same was presented after about two years. The Revenue Officer waited till the expiry of the appeal period and thereafter directed distribution. We find nothing illegal in his action. In the facts and circumstances, we hold that even though there was an appeal and/or revision preferred subsequently, that had in essence and effect no bearing on the distribution of the land.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lawrence Messy vs Diocese Of Delhi on 11 September, 2019

From the judgments in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour, (1979) I LLJ 448 AP, Workmen employed in the Madras Pinjrapole v. Management of the Madras Pinjrapole, AIR 1963 MAD 89, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee of Management Gurdwara Dhakhwaran Sahib v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, (2003) 135 PLR 462, Harihar Bahinipaty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 ORI 35, K.C. Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty v. State of Kerala, 2004 (2) KLJ 398, The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., AIR 1954 SC 282 and, needless to say, Bangalore Water Supply (supra), this Court noted that (i) an institution, the main function of which was worship and facilitation of worship by pilgrims, would be essentially a religious institution and such an institution could not be regarded as an "industry", even if, for the convenience of the pilgrims, certain departments, in which persons were required to be taken on hire, had to be maintained, (ii) what was required to be seen was, therefore, the essential character of the institution, and (iii) in order to qualify as an "industry", within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, an element of res commercium was essential, i.e., the institution had to be in the business of distribution of goods and services, or in activities analogous thereto.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Aseem Abbas vs Rajghat Samadhi Committee & Anr on 9 February, 2012

(iii) A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Harihar Bahinipaty Vs. State of 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 LPA Nos.97/2012 & 98/2012 Page 7 of 11 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 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.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj vs Rajghat Samadhi Committee & Anr on 9 February, 2012

(iii) A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Harihar Bahinipaty Vs. State of 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 LPA Nos.97/2012 & 98/2012 Page 7 of 11 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 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.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sh. Suresh Chand vs M/S. Manas Mandir on 30 May, 2015

(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.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next