Gujarat High Court
Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey vs Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal … on 16 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2319 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/21883/2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UMESHWAR AKSHAYWAR DUBEY
Versus
SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEVA MANDAL TRUST & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AK CLERK(235) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 16/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla appearing for
the appellant and learned advocate Mr.A.K. Clerk for the
respondent No.1 – Trust.
Page 1 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
1865, the appellant – petitioner has challenged the Judgment
and Order dated 02.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No.21883 of 2016.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition
wherein, the Order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Labour
Court, Navsari in Reference (LCN) No.1 of 2014 is upheld and
it is held that the Labour Court did not commit any error by
coming to the conclusion that the appellant could not be
termed as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the “I.D. Act“).
4. The brief facts of the case are as under: –
4.1. The appellant was working as a Pujari in the Temple run
and manged by the respondent No.1 – Trust with effect from
10.03.1999. The appellant was performing Pooja and Aarti at
the Temple and was initially paid Rs.1200/- per month
towards his remuneration.
4.2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No.1 –
Page 2 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Trust was managing Shri Saibaba Temple and was also selling
‘Bundi Ladu’, coconut etc. The respondent No.1 – Trust had
employed 3 Pujaris, 1 Manager, 2 persons for taking
donations, 6 staff members for general administration of
various activities, 2 cooks and 20 workmen for preparing
‘Bundi Ladus’ and cleaning the Temple and other premises
and accordingly, the respondent No.1 – Trust was carrying
out its religious and commercial activities by employing about
35 to 40 workmen.
4.3. It is the case of the appellant that his service was
terminated on 30.11.2012 by the respondent No.1 – Trust
without any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation or
without following any legal procedure and contrary to the
principles of natural justice. The appellant, therefore, raised
the industrial dispute by filing a complaint before the
Conciliation Officer, Navsari on 09.10.2014, which was
referred to the Labour Court, Navsari being Reference (LCN)
No.1 of 2014.
4.4. The appellant submitted his Statement of Claim praying
to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service
Page 3 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
and full back wages on the ground that the respondent No.1 –
Trust is an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
I.D. Act as the respondent No.1 – Trust is carrying on
commercial and business activity by selling ‘Bundi Ladus and
coconuts’ and other Pooja articles and, therefore, there is a
breach of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the
I.D. Act.
4.5. The respondent No.1 – Trust submitted its written
statement at Exh.8 on 20.11.2014 denying the allegations
made in the Statement of Claim. However, it was admitted by
the respondent No.1 that the appellant was working as Pujari
since 1999 and by Resolution passed on 30.11.2012, his
service was terminated.
4.6. The appellant, thereafter, submitted documentary
evidence on record including the copies of money receipts
issued by the respondent No.1 – Trust for sale of ‘Bundi
Ladus.’ The appellant was also cross-examined on behalf of
the respondent No.1 – Trust. The respondent No.1 – Trust
thereafter, submitted application dated 14.07.2016 at Exh.31
to decide whether the Labour Court is having jurisdiction to
Page 4 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
entertain the Reference or not, as the appellant was working
as Pujari and, therefore, cannot be said to be a ‘Workman’
under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, as preliminary issue.
4.7. The appellant filed reply at Exh.32 on 28.07.2016
raising the dispute that such application could not have been
entertained at a belated stage as the deposition of the
appellant was already completed. The Labour Court allowed
the application and framed the preliminary issue at Exh.37 as
to whether the appellant could be termed to be a workman within
the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4.8. The Labour Court after considering the submissions
made by both the sides, passed an order dated 03.09.2016 on
the preliminary issue by rejecting the Reference holding that
the appellant was not covered within the definition of
‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence labour
Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the reference.
4.9. The appellant, therefore, being aggrieved by the order of
the Labour Court dated 03.09.2016 preferred Special Civil
Application No.21883 of 2016 before this Court. The learned
Page 5 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Single Judge after considering the submissions made by both
the sides, dismissed the petition by observing as under: –
“6.1 The Labour Court had vide Exh. 37 framed
Preliminary Issue as to whether the petitioner
could be termed to be a workman within the
definition of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
Labour Court has recorded its findings qua the
said issue framed by it vide the impugned order
dated 03.09.2016. This Court has taken into
consideration the reasons recorded by the Labour
Court. The Labour Court has, in its findings,
starting from Para 7 onwards noted that, the
petitioner could not be termed to be a workman,
for the reasons recorded therein.
xxxxx
6.3 When the material on record before the
Labour Court is weighed viz-a-viz the law in that
regard, this Court finds that the Labour Court has
not committed any error by coming to the
conclusion the the petitioner could not be termed
as a workman with the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No interference
therefore is required.
6.4 The decisions relied by learned advocate for
the petitioner would not help the petitioner in
view of the decision of Supreme Court of India as
noted above.”
Page 6 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
4.10. The learned Single Judge has also referred to and
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of H.R. Adyanthaya and Others V.s Sandoz (India) Ltd.
and Others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737 wherein, it is held
that a person to be a workman under the I.D. Act must be
employed to do the work of any of the categories i.e. manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory. It was therefore held by the learned Single Judge
that as the Pujari is not falling in any of these categories, the
Labour Court has rightly held that the appellant cannot be
termed as ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, which
is confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
4.11. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal
which is admitted by order dated 24.01.2018 by the Co-
ordinate Bench as the issue involved in the appeal is whether
the Pujari offering the services in the Temple can be said to be
a ‘workman’ or not.
5. Learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated
Page 7 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the submissions on behalf of the appellant that the Labour
Court has erred in allowing the application at Exh.31
submitted by the respondent No.1 – Trust at a belated stage
after the deposition of the appellant was completed on
21.04.2016 and after submission of the several documents by
the appellant in evidence.
5.1. It was pointed out that the application for preliminary
issue was submitted almost after about two years from the
date of submission of the written statement on 20.11.2014. It
was, therefore, submitted that the Labour Court could not
have allowed the application Exh.31 to frame and decide the
preliminary issue and thereafter, reject the Reference of the
appellant, contrary to the settled legal position to hold that
the appellant cannot be considered as ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
5.2. It was submitted that the judgments and decisions relied
upon by the appellant wherein, it is held that the Temple is an
‘Industry’ and the provisions of the I.D. Act would be
applicable to such Trust running and managing Temple,
therefore, the Pujari, performing the Pooja is manual work
Page 8 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
and would fall within the definition of ‘Workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. It was, therefore, submitted that
the learned Single Judge has committed an error by not
dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
as the Labour Court, ignored the deposition of the appellant
as well as the documents submitted by him to prove that the
respondent No.1 – Trust is carrying on commercial activities
and, therefore, it is an ‘Industry’ and the appellant is a
‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla, in support of his
submissions, referred to the decision of the learned Single
Judge Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cutchi Visa
Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan vs. B.D. Borude, I.T.
Maharashtra, reported in 1987(1) LLJ 81 (Bombay).
Referring to the said decision, it was submitted that in the
facts of the said case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has
held that when the charitable trust is carrying on religious
activity of managing the Temple and carrying out commercial
activities then, it cannot be said that the Charitable Trust
merely provides spiritual benefits and not material benefits. It
was held that the Pujari is engaged for giving service to the
Page 9 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
devotees, and the services are not necessarily spiritual in
nature. In the facts of the said case, as the Charitable Trust
acquired large properties at several places in Bombay and
was letting out the same and the workmen were employed to
give services at those properties, which was held to be non-
religious in nature and it was, therefore, held that the
charitable Trust was an undertaking under the definition of
‘Industry’ within the meaning of I.D. Act.
5.4. It was, therefore, submitted that in the facts of present
case also, when the respondent No.1 – Trust is carrying out
the commercial activities by selling ‘Bundi Laddus’, coconut
etc. , the same would fall within the definition of ‘Industry’
under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and the appellant,
performing as Pujari in the Temple would be covered by
definition of ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
5.5. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla referred to and relied
upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in the case of Workmen of
M/s.Baikuntha Nath Debasthan Trust (Baikuntha Nath
Debasthan Mandir Trust) Rep. By Paschimbanga
Page 10 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Byabasayi Sramik Sengstha vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in 1990(2) CalLT 42 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court held that when the Pujari on a regular wage basis
perform Pooja then he would be covered under the definition
of ‘Workman’ as the institution was running more on a
commercial than spiritual line and, therefore, would be
covered within the definition of ‘Industry’ under Section 2(j) of
the I.D. Act.
5.6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
vs. Commissioner-cum-deputy Commissioner, Baba,
reported in 1991(1) CLJ (HP) 302 wherein, it was held in
the facts of the case that Baba Balaknath Temple Trust was
carrying out the construction activities at large scale over a
period of time and additionally, it was running an Ayurvedic
dispensary, Degree College with U.G.C. Scale to the staff and
School etc. and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply
& Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others, reported in
1978(2) SCC 213, the Trust was held to be an industry
within the provisions of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act by
Page 11 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
observing as under:-
“10. No doubt, those activities of the Trust
pertaining to pooja and Archna’ in the temple of
the Trust including material things or services
geared to celestial bliss e. g making, on a large
scale, ‘prasad’ or food exclusively for offering to
the Deity are spiritual or religious and those
employees who are engaged in these activities are
not workmen by definition and may not be
governed by the provisions of the Act. The number
of these employees must be nominal as compared
to employees who are engaged in the production
and/or distribution of goods and services
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes of
devotees who visit the temple of the Trust.
Therefore, by applying the dominant nature test
as held in para 143 (a) of Bangalore Water Supply
(supra), the Trust is an Industry. It is not the case
of the trust that the petitioners were engaged for
such activities which are purely spiritual or
religious, for which it must be having regular
staff. Therefore, in answer to the first question we
hold that the Trust is an industry and the
petitioners being its daily wage workers are its
workmen, who are governed by the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act. We need not refer to
the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for
the parties wherein the religious trusts have been
held either industry or not, as these are decided in
the facts and circumstances on record of thosePage 12 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
cases.”
5.7. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla also referred to and relied
upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Devadeveshwar Sansthan
Parvati And Kothrud vs. Sushila Raghu Kadu, reported in
2002(4) LLJ 28 wherein, it was held that the Trust employing
about 40 workmen in the category of Malis, Peons, Watchmen
and Sweepers etc. would be covered by the definition of
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act because in the said case, the Trust,
in addition to maintenance of the Temple, also maintained a
Museum and a Gallery.
5.8. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Gajanan Maharaj Sanathan vs.
Gajanan Karamchari Sangh, reported in 2002(10) SCC
531 wherein, Gajanan Maharaj Trust, carrying out religious
and charitable activities, was ordered to be considered in light
of the decision of the 7 Judge Bench in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra) and the order of the
High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back
to inquire into the nature and activities carried out by the
Page 13 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
employees of the Trust.
5.9. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla, therefore, submitted that
in view of the above settled legal position, the appellant –
original petitioner, serving as Pujari, is covered in the
definition within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act to
be termed as ‘Workman’ and, therefore, the impugned orders
passed by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single
Judge may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be
sent back to the Labour Court to decide the Reference on
merits as there is clear violation of the provisions of Section
25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act by the respondent No.1 –
Trust.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. A. K. Clerk for
the respondent No.1 – Trust submitted that Shri Saibaba
Temple managed by the respondent No.1 cannot be
considered as ‘Industry’ as per Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. It
was submitted that the respondent No.1 – Trust is registered
under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for
charitable purposes and cannot be considered as an
‘Industry’. It was further pointed out that the learned Single
Page 14 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Judge of this Court in the case of Indravadan N. Adhvaryu
vs. Laxminarayan Dev Trust Through Chief Executive
Kothari, reported in 2011(2) LLJ 273 has held that the
respondent – Trust cannot be considered as an ‘Industry’,
which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.2386 of 2010, reported in 2011(2)
LLJ 275. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk also referred to and
relied upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada
vs. Laxminarayan Dev Trust passed in Civil Appeal
No.7549 of 2011 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that Laxminarayan Dev Trust, is a Temple and as such, should
not fall within the four corners of expression “Industry” and
has not interfered on merits.
6.1. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Manager, Panchasara
Jain Derasar, Patna Dist. vs. Mahmadkha Gajikha Baloch
reported in 1993(1) GLH (UJ)9 by quashing and setting
aside the order of the Labour Court whereby, it was held that
the petitioner – Temple was an ‘Industry’. It was pointed out
that the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere in the decision
Page 15 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
of the Division Bench and closed the matter on payment of
compensation.
6.2. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the learned
Single Judge in the case of Aarsuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan
Trust vs. Motiji Meghaji Rabari reported in 2021 LawSuit
(Guj) 91 wherein, it was held that the petitioner – Trust was
managing the Temple and activity of providing lunch and
dinner on concessional basis to the pilgrims, shall not be
treated as an industrial work but, it was considered to be a
part of charitable activity.
6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk referred to and relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
case of Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari
Devasthanam, Rep. By its Executive Officer,
Simhachalam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its
PRL Secretary and 2 others, reported in 2020 2 ALD 22
wherein, it was held by the learned Single Judge of the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court as under:-
[8] The legal position in this regard is not res
Page 16 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
nova and the same has been well settled. The
question whether a temple rendering religious
and spiritual services to the pilgrims, who
visit the temple to worship the presiding Deity
in the temple is a religious institution or an
industry, has fallen for consideration on many
occasions before the Apex Court and various
High Courts including the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it is expedient to
consider the relevant judgments on the point
which are of precedential guidance which
throw light on the controversy involved in this
lis to decide whether the temple whose
primary objective is to render religious and
spiritual services to the pilgrims of the
temple, is to be considered as an industry
under the Industrial Disputes Act or not.
[9] The Division Bench of the High Court of
Orissa in the case of Harihar Bahinipaty v.
State of Orissa, 1965 10 FLR 313 had an
occasion to deal with the issue whether the
management of Puri Jagannath Temple and its
workmen comes within the purview of the
Industrial Disputes Act or not. The workers
working in Sri Jagannath Swamy Temple,
Puri, raised a dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner for conciliation for
redressal of their grievance relating to
payment of arrears of salary by the
management of the Temple. The conciliationPage 17 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
failed. So, the workers moved the State
Government for referring the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under
the Industrial Disputes Act. The State
Government declined to refer the dispute
under the Industrial Disputes Act on the
ground that there is no case for reference of
the dispute for adjudication as the dispute
between the management of the Temple and
its workmen does not come within the
purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore, challenging the decision of the
State Government, the workers of the Temple
approached the High Court invoking the writ
jurisdiction. The Division Bench of the Orissa
High Court considered the earlier precedents
rendered on the subject and held at
paragraph No.22 of the judgment as follows:
“22. It is thus abundantly clear that
Shri Jagannath Temple is not an
institution where material human
needs are being met. It is primarily a
spiritual institution. The Ballav that is
prepared is offered to the deity as
Bhog. It is therefore sold as prasad. It
is not that the Temple serves the
purpose of a hotel for catering
foodstuffs. The maintenance of order
and discipline and proper hygienic
conditions in the temple and of properPage 18 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
standard of cleanliness and purity in
the offerings made therein, as
required under Section 15(4) of the
Shri Jagannath Temple Act 11 of 1955,
is for preserving spiritual atmosphere
of the temple and for providing
facilities to the pilgrims to have
peaceful Darshan of the Deity. The
primary object is spiritual. The
petitioners are to maintain peace and
tranquility inside the temple. The duty
of maintaining order and discipline
inside the temple is different from the
duty of the policeman to keep law and
order outside on the public road. The
duty of the petitioners inside the
Temple is akin to that of teachers to
maintain order and In a class room in
an educational institution.”
10] Having held so, the Division Bench of the
Orissa High Court ultimately held that the
main objective of an institution is always to be
kept in view. As the spiritual side is the
ultimate object of Shri Jagannath Swamy
Temple, it cannot be sald that it is an
industry. The duties of the management of the
temple are to keep the temple in order and to
see that there is no irregularity. Thus, one of
the features which are distinctive to which
Section 2(j) applies are present in the instant
Page 19 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
case. Therefore, the High Court of Orissa
upheld the decision of the Orissa Government
in declining to refer the dispute under the
Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the
dispute between the management of the
temple and the workmen does not come
within the purview of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
[11] The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the case of Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour,
1979 1 LLJ 448 AP had an occasion to deal
with the issue whether the Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanam is an industry as defined under
Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
whether its employees are workmen as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Act or not.
The Division Bench of this High Court
considered various judgments rendered by
various High Courts and also the Apex Court
on the said controversy and elaborately
discussed the legal position in this regard and
ultimately held at paragraph No.22 of the
judgment as follows:
“22. The Tirumala Tirupathi
Devasthanam consists of a group of
religious institutions in Tirumalai and
Tirupathi. They are together regardedPage 20 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
as one religious institution for the
purposes of Charitable and Religious
Endowments Act. The main function of
the Devasthanam is 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. It is,
therefore, essentially a religious
institution. Having regard to the
enormous income, which this
Devasthanam derives, it utilises the
income for various educational and
religious purposes. It has established
several educational institutions and
also it is one of the prime donors of the
Venkateswara University. In order to
cater to the thousands of pilgrims
especially to the temple of Tirumalai,
the Devasthanam also runs several
canteens, dispensaries, etc. It has
necessarily to provide for transport of
the pilgrims, which it was undertaking
on its own till recently. It has
departments dealing with supply of
electricity and water, not only to the
pilgrims but to the members of the
staff, Archakas, etc., and to the
quarters constructed in Tirumala for
the benefit of the pilgrims. Even
though, having regard to the enormous
flow of pilgrims throughout the year thePage 21 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Devasthanam has to maintain several
departments, there can be no doubt
that the essential character of the
institution is that of a religious
institution. We cannot, therefore,
regard the Devasthanam generally as
an industry within the meaning of
Trade Unions Act or within the meaning
of Industrial Disputes Act.”
[15] Thus, from the conspectus of law
enunciated in the above judgment of the
Division Bench of this High Court, the legal
position is now manifest that when the
primary object of the Temple/Endowment is to
render spiritual services to the pilgrims
visiting the Temple to worship the Deity and
its predominant activity is a religious and
spiritual activity, the Temple or the
Endowment, as the case may be, as a whole
cannot be regarded as an industry, bringing
the same within the purview of the definition
of the industry as defined under Section 2(j) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, any
dispute that arises between the Endowment
and its employee cannot be regarded as an
industrial dispute and the employee of the
said Temple or Endowment cannot be
considered as a workman as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Act. So, no right is
conferred on any such employee appointed by
Page 22 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the Endowment to raise an industrial dispute
under the Industrial Disputes Act in
connection with any dispute that arose
between the Endowment and the employee.
[16] The learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent relied on the judgment of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of
Jagbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
1999 2 LLJ 304 HP wherein it is held that the
Trust is an industry and the writ petitioners
who were working in the said Trust are
workmen and as they were retrenched
without giving notice and compensation as
provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act that the dispute raised by them
is valid.
[17] As it is found in the said case that the
Baba Balak Nath Temple is a Trust, in the fact
situation obtained in the said case, the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the Trust
is an industry. The said case is distinguishable
on facts and it is not of use to the case set up
by the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner
in this writ petition is not a Trust. It is a
religious Endowment Temple and in view of
the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanam‘s case (3) supra) which prevails
Page 23 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
over the judgment of other High Court,
considering the ratio laid down in the said
judgment, this Court arrived at a conclusion
that the petitioner/Temple is not an industry
and the 3rd respondent is not a workman.
[18] However, the legal position as enunciated
by the Division Bench of this High Court in
the above judgment, after undertaking a
laborious exercise of surveying the entire law
on the subject with reference to the earlier
precedents rendered by the Apex Court is that
when the Temple or the Endowment, as the
case may be, maintains other individual
departments like Engineering Department,
Transport Department, Water Department
etc., then the said separate departments as
individual units can be regarded as an
industry and employees working in the said
separate units can be considered as workmen
and any dispute which arises between the
employer and employee relating to the said
separate units is amenable to raise an
industrial dispute.
[19] Applying the aforesaid tests, if the
dispute on hand is considered, it is to be held
that Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Vari Temple, which is declared as an
endowment under Section 6(a)(ii) of the
Page 24 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Endowments Act and registered under
Section 43 of the Endowments Act, whose
primary object is to render spiritual services
to its pilgrims visiting the Temple from all
over the country to offer worship to the
presiding Deity of the Temple which is
religious activity and having regard to the
said predominant activity of the Temple, it is
to be held that the petitioner
Temple/Endowment as a whole cannot be
regarded as an industry.”
6.4. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of
the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of
Mookambika Temple, Kollur vs. Raviraja Shetty and
Ors., reported in AIR 2020 KARNATAKA 60, wherein the
Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that
a temple cannot come within the definition of ‘Industry’ under
the provisions of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, which defines
‘Industry’ to mean any having business, trade, undertaking,
manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling,
service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen. It is also held that the Temple does not
come within the expression “Industrial Establishment or
undertaking” under Section 2(ka) of the I.D. Act. The Full
Page 25 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also
considered the decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in
the case of Shri Jagannath Temple, reported in 1992 Lab
IC 1621 (Ori) wherein, the pertinent question was whether
the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act were applicable
to its employees or not and the Division Bench of the Hon’ble
Orissa High Court held that the provisions of Section 1(3)(b)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act are not restricted only to
commercial establishments but, to establishment within the
meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to
establishments in a State.
6.5. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk also referred to the decision
of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Pushkarlal S/o Bhanwar Lal Shrimali vs. Administrative
Officer, reported in 2021 LLR 725, wherein the Hon’ble
Rajasthan High Court, after considering the scope of work of
Pujari in a Temple, held that a Pujari would not be covered by
the definition of “Workman” within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the I.D. Act. However, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High
Court in the said decision, has held that even if the Temple
falls within the definition of “Industry” given in Section 2(j) of
Page 26 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the I.D. Act, the Pujari is not a “Workman” as per the
provisions of I.D. Act and, therefore, the Labour Court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred by the
appropriate Government. It was pointed out that the Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.5675 of 2021 arising out of the
aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has
been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated
12.04.2021.
6.6. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk for respondent No.1 – Trust
referred to the following decisions to canvass that the
persons, who are not performing the work of the nature
specified in the definition of the term “Workman” under
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act are not “Workmen”.
(1) Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing
Co. of India Ltd. vs. The Burmah Shell
Management Staff Association and others,
reported in AIR 1971 SC 922.
(2) H.R. Adyanthaya and Others V.s Sandoz
(India) Ltd. and Others reported in (1994) 5
Supreme Court Cases 737
(3) Miss. A. Sundarambal vs. Government of
Page 27 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
GOA, Daman and Diu and others, reported in
(1988)4 SCC 42.
(4) Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional
Manager, LIC and others reported in (2004)8 SCC
387.
(5) Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. vs.
Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another, reported
in (2007)1 SCC 491.
(6) C. Gupta vs. Glaxo-Smithkline
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in (2007)7 SCC
171.
(7) Lenin Kumar Ray vs. M/s. Express
Publications (Madurai) Ltd., reported in 2024(12)
SCALE 538.”
6.7. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk also referred to and relied
upon the following decisions in support of his contention that
a Pujari performing Pooja in a Temple or a Pastor in a Church
cannot be considered as a “Workman” within the definition of
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act:-
(1) Laxmi Narayan Shastri vs. Shri Sanatan
Dharam Sabha Laxmi Narayan Temple Trust,
reported in 2011 LawSuit (Del) 1128.
(2) Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) vs. Durga Prasad
Page 28 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
and others, reported in 2007-I LLJ 651 (Delhi).
(3) Ram Kishan Sharma vs. Presiding Officer and
Another, reported in 2016 LLR 511 (P&H High
Court).
(4) Radhakrishna Bhakta vs. Subramanya Shastri,
reported in 2006(2) LLJ 669 (Karnataka).
(5) A. Kesava Bhatt and Sree Ram Ambalam Trust
and another., in O.P. No.7451 of 1988-K dated
September 23, 1988 (Kerala High Court).
(6) M.R. Damon (Ms.), Mission Superintendent,
P.B. No.17, Andivilla Bungalow, Kodaikanal and
Another vs. Rev. M.M. Raja Dass, Chennai and
Another, reported in 2003-II LLJ 730 (Madras).”
6.8. Referring to the above Judgments, it was submitted that
the appellant, who was working as a Pujari with the
respondent No.1 -Trust, would not fall within the definition of
“Workman” under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and, therefore,
the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
Reference made by the appropriate Government. It was,
therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in the
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single
Judge upholding the Order of the Labour Court, whereby the
Page 29 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Reference is rejected on the ground of jurisdiction.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, two questions arise for consideration (1) whether Shri
Saibaba Temple run by the respondent No.1 – Trust can be
considered as an ‘Industry’ within the provisions of Section
2(j) of the I.D. Act and if the answer to the first question is in
affirmative or in alternative, (2) whether the appellant, who
was performing the duties of Pujari would fall within the
provisions of ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or
not.
8. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant – original
petitioner was discharging his duties as Pujari of the Temple
run and managed by the respondent No.1 – Trust. It would,
therefore, be germane to refer to the relevant provisions of
the I.D. Act as under:-
“2(j) “industry” means any business, trade,
undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers
and includes any calling, service, employment,
handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation
of workmen;
Page 30 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
2(s) “workman” means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as
a consequence of, that dispute, or whose
dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to
that dispute, but does not include any such person
—
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950
(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of
1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or
as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial
or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten
thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises,
either by the nature of the duties attached to
the office or by reason of the powers vested
in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.”
Page 31 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
9. On perusal of the provisions of Section 2(j) of the I.D.
Act, the ‘Industry’ means business, trade, undertaking,
manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling,
service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen. Therefore, whether the Temple can be
considered as an ‘Industry’ within the aforesaid definition or
not has been deliberated upon and decided by the various
Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It would,
therefore, be necessary to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding
the issue as to whether the Temple would fall within the
purview of ‘Industry’ under the I.D. Act or not.
10. This Court in the case of Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala
Fali Modhvada (supra), has held that the Temple run and
managed by the Laxminarayan Dev Trust is not an ‘Industry’
as per the definition of ‘Industry’, which is also upheld by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Order passed on 29.01.2026
in the case of Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada
vs. Laxmi Narayan Dev Trust(supra)wherein, it is held as
under:-
Page 32 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
“4. Though the argument of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant at the first blush looks
attractive, we are not inclined to entertain the
same as the reasons assigned by the Labour Court
is to the effect that the respondent-Trust is a
temple and as such, it would not fall within the
four corners of the expression “industry”.
However, the oral termination in the instant case
at the first instance being without holding any
inquiry and thereafter, transferring the appellant
to a far-off place not being warranted and as a
result of the same, the disciplinary proceedings
having been initiated, we are of the considered
view that the entire issue can be laid to rest by
directing the respondent-Trust to pay a lump-sum
compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lakhs) since the appellant had worked for twelve
years in the said Trust continuously,
uninterruptedly and without any blemish.”
11. In the case of Aarsuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust
(supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held as
under:-
“7. Now, it is an admitted fact that the present
petitioner is a Trust and the activity of providing
lunch and dinner on concessional basis to the
pilgrim cannot be treated as an industrial work.
Page 33 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Such activity of providing lunch and dinner on
charitable basis is not an activity which may fall
within the meaning of the industrial activity.”
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahamadkha
Gajika Baloch vs. Manager, Panchasara Jain Derasar,
reported in 1994 LawSuit (SC) 741, has impliedly confirmed
the judgment of this Court t wherein, it is held that the Jain
Temple is not an ‘Industry’, by considering the question of
reasonableness of compensation.
13. In the case before this Court, it was held that except
Bhakti and Puja, no other activity was carried out in the
Temple and even if it is assumed that certain articles are sold
to the persons, who come for darshan, there was no material
to show that they were sold at a profit and, therefore, it was
held that the Temple is not an ‘Industry’ within the meaning
of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The Court also considered the
decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of
Workmen of M/s.B.N. Debasthan Trust vs. State of West
Bengal, reported in 1991-I LLJ 145 to distinguish the same
where, it was found by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that
Page 34 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the approach of the Temple was mercenary and activity which
it was carrying on was of commercial nature.
14. Even in the case of Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali
Modhvada (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has only
considered the aspect of compensation payable to the
employee while confirming that the Temple is not an
‘Industry.
15. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam
(supra), while considering the very issue as to whether the
Tirumala Temple is an ‘Industry’ as per Section 2(j) of the I.D.
Act and whether the employees were ‘Workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not, has held as under:-
“[7] It is not in dispute that the petitioner Sri
Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari
Devasthanam is a religious institution published
under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Endowments Act. It is
also not in controversy that the
petitioner/Devasthanam was registered under
Section 43 of the Endowments Act. Sri Varaha
Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy is the presiding DeityPage 35 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
in the Temple. Pilgrims from various parts of the
country visit the Temple and offer their prayers.
These material facts are incontrovertible facts in
this lis. Therefore, it is clear that it is essentially a
religious institution. It is also primarily a spiritual
institution. So, when the object of the institution is
primarily to render spiritual services to the
pilgrims to enable them to worship the presiding
Deity in the Temple, having regard to the said
predominant activity of the Temple, it is to be held
that it is undoubtedly a religious institution and a
spiritual institution.
[8] The legal position in this regard is not res nova
and the same has been well settled. The question
whether a temple rendering religious and spiritual
services to the pilgrims, who visit the temple to
worship the presiding Deity in the temple is a
religious institution or an industry, has fallen for
consideration on many occasions before the Apex
Court and various High Courts including the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it is
expedient to consider the relevant judgments on
the point which are of precedential guidance
which throw light on the controversy involved in
this lis to decide whether the temple whose
primary objective is to render religious and
spiritual services to the pilgrims of the temple, is
to be considered as an industry under the
Industrial Disputes Act or not.”
Page 36 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
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:-
“22. It is thus abundantly clear that Shri
Jagannath Temple is not an institution where
material human needs are being met. It is
primarily a spiritual institution. The Ballav that is
prepared is offered to the deity as Bhog. It is
therefore sold as prasad. It is not that the Temple
serves the purpose of a hotel for catering
foodstuffs. The maintenance of order and
discipline and proper hygienic conditions in the
temple and of proper standard of cleanliness and
purity in the offerings made therein, as required
under Section 15(4) of the Shri Jagannath Temple
Act 11 of 1955, is for preserving spiritual
atmosphere of the temple and for providing
facilities to the pilgrims to have peaceful DarshanPage 37 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
of the Deity. The primary object is spiritual. The
petitioners are to maintain peace and tranquility
inside the temple. The duty of maintaining order
and discipline inside the temple is different from
the duty of the policeman to keep law and order
outside on the public road. The duty of the
petitioners inside the Temple is akin to that of
teachers to maintain order and discipline inside a
class room in an educational institution.”
17. Therefore, the main objective of an institution is always
to be kept in view and as the spiritual side is the ultimate
object of any Temple, it cannot be said to be an ‘Industry’
inasmuch as the duties of the management of the Trust are
only to keep the Temple in order and to see that there is no
irregularity. Therefore, it was held by the Hon’ble Orissa
High Court that the dispute between the management of the
Temple and the workmen could not come within the purview
of the I.D. Act.
18. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam vs.
Commissioner of Labour, reported in 1979 1 LLJ 448 AP
also had an occasion to deal with the same issue as to
Page 38 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
whether, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is an industry
under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and whether the employees
are ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not. After
considering the various judgments rendered by various High
Courts and also the Hon’ble Apex Court on the said
controversy, it was held as under:-
“22. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam consists
of a group of religious institutions in Tirumalai
and Tirupathi. They are together regarded as one
religious institution for the purposes of Charitable
and Religious Endowments Act. The main function
of the Devasthanam is 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. It is, therefore, essentially a religious
institution. Having regard to the enormous
income, which this Devasthanam derives, it
utilises the income for various educational and
religious purposes. It has established several
educational institutions and also it is one of the
prime donors of the Venkateswara University. In
order to cater to the thousands of pilgrims
especially to the temple of Tirumalai, the
Devasthanam also runs several canteens,
dispensaries, etc. It has necessarily to provide for
transport of the pilgrims, which it was
undertaking on its own till recently. It hasPage 39 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
departments dealing with supply of electricity and
water, not only to the pilgrims but to the members
of the staff, Archakas, etc., and to the quarters
constructed in Tirumala for the benefit of the
pilgrims. Even though, having regard to the
enormous flow of pilgrims throughout the year the
Devasthanam has to maintain several
departments, there can be no doubt that the
essential character of the institution is that of a
religious institution. We cannot, therefore, regard
the Devasthanam generally as an industry within
the meaning of Trade Unions Act or within the
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
24. We are unable to agree with the contention
that the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam should
be regarded generally as an industry. As pointed
out in University of Delhi v. Ramnath, in
considering whether a public institution is an
industry or not, the predominant activity or object
must be taken into consideration. Adopting this
test we are of the view that the Tirumala Tirupathi
Devasthanam as a body cannot be considered to
be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j)
of the Industrial Disputes Act or within the
meaning of Trade Unions Act.”
19. However, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
facts of the case, held that the Devasthanam as a whole
Page 40 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
cannot be regarded as an industry, if any separate
departments like Electricity, Water and Transport
Departments are maintained by the Devasthanam, only those
departments as a single unit can be considered as an industry
or analogous to an industry and employees in those
departments would be ‘Workman’ within the meaning of
20. Considering such conspectus of law, the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court in facts of the case before it, held that
when the primary object of the Temple / Endowment is to
render spiritual services to the pilgrims visiting the Temple to
worship the Deity and its predominant activity is a religious
and spiritual activity, then the Temple as a whole cannot be
regarded as an ‘Industry’ within the scope of the ‘Industry’ as
per Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and, therefore, any dispute
between the employees and the management of the Temple
cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute and the
employees cannot be considered as a ‘Workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
21. In the case of Lawrence Messy vs. Diocese of Delhi,
Page 41 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
reported in 2019 – IV LLJ 359 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court held that 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. It was
further held that what was required to be seen is, therefore,
essential character of the institution and in order to qualify
“industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act,
an element of res commercium is essential i.e. institution had
to be in the business of distribution of goods and services or
in activities analogous thereto. In the facts of the case before
the Hon’ble Court, it was found that the activities carried out
by Diocese are essentially ecclesiastical, evangelical and
spiritual in nature and this being essential nature and
character of the Diocese, it is questionable as to whether it
could be regarded as an “industry” as no part of income,
forming the corpus of the Diocese, comes from any activity
which could partake of the character of res commercium.
22. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in
Page 42 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the case of Mookambika Temple, Kollur (supra), while
considering the issue under the provisions of the Karnataka
Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act
(33 of 2001) and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in para 60,
has held that the Temple cannot also come within the
definition of ‘Industry’ under the provisions of the I.D. Act as
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act defines an ‘Industry’ and the
Temple is not within the meaning of expression ‘Industry’
under the I.D. Act nor does it become within the expression
‘Industrial Establishment or Undertaking’ under Section 2(ka)
of the I.D. Act.
23. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra),
while considering the meaning and scope of “Industry” under
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, has laid down the test and
guidelines for inclusion and exclusion. So far as considering
the issue as to whether the Bombay Panjrapole would be
covered by the definition of ‘Industry’ or not, it was held that
a Panjrapole is no Church, Mosque or Temple and, therefore,
employees engaged by the Panjrapole on ordinary economic
terms and with condition of service as in any other business
Page 43 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
institutions having organisational comparability to other profit
making dairies or Panjarpoles. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
held 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 and stray wage-earning
employees do not shape the soul of an institution into an
industry. While considering the question whether the
charitable institutions are industries or not, it was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-
“103. If we mull over the major decisions, we get
a hang of the basic structure of “industry” in its
legal anatomy. Bedrocked on the grundnorms, we
must analyse the elements of charitable economic
enterprises, established and maintained for
satisfying human wants. Easily, three broad
categories emerge; more may exist. The charitable
element enlivens the operations at different levels
in these patterns and the legal consequences are
different, viewed from the angle of “industry”. For
income tax purposes, Trusts Act or company law
or registration law or penal code requirements the
examination will be different. We are concerned
with a benignant disposition towards workmen
and a trichotomy of charitable enterprises run for
producing and/or supplying goods and services,
organized systematically and employing workmen,Page 44 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
is scientific.
104. The first is one where the enterprise, like any
other, yields profits but they are siphoned off for
altruistic objects. The second is one where the
institution makes no profit but hires the services
of employees as in other like businesses but the
goods and services, which are the output, are
made available, at low or no cost, to the indigent
needy who are priced out of the market. The third
is where the establishment is oriented on a
humane mission fulfilled by 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. The first two
are industries, the third not. What is the test of
identity whereby these institutions with
eleemosynary inspiration fall or do not fall under
the definition of industry?
106. It is common ground that the first category of
charities is disqualified for exemption. If a
business is run for production and or supply of
goods and services with an eye on profit, it is
plainly an industry. The fact that the whole or
substantial part of the profits so earned is
diverted for purely charitable purposes does not
affect the nature of the economic activity which
involves the cooperation of employer and
employee and results in the production of goodsPage 45 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
and services. The workers are not concerned
about the destination of the profits. They work and
receive wages. They are treated like any other
workmen in any like industry. All the features of
an industry, as spelt out from the definition by the
decisions of this Court, are fully present in these
charitable businesses. In short, they are
industries. The application of the income for
philanthropic purposes, instead of filling private
coffers, makes no difference either to the
employees or to the character of the activities.
Good Samaritans can be clever industrialists.”
24. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 110 as
under:-
“….. If a philanthropic devotion is the basis for the
charitable foundation or establishment, the
institution is headed by one who wholeheartedly
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
fulfillment, then the undertaking is not ‘industrial’.
Not that the presence of charitable impulse
extricates the institution from the definition in
Section 2(j) but that there is no economic
relationship such as is found in trade or business
between the head who employs and the others
who emotively flock to render service. In onePage 46 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
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…..”
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court has thereafter, given an
example of the Ashram and described the same as under:-
” ….. Supposing there is an Ashram or Order with
a guru or other head. Let us further assume that
there is a band of disciples, devotees or priestly
subordinates in the Order, gathered together for
prayers, ascetic practices, bhajans, meditation
and worship. Supposing, further, that outsiders
are also invited daily or occasionally, to share in
the spiritual proceedings. And, let us assume that
all the inmates of the Ashram and members of the
Order, invitees, guests and other outside
participants are fed, accommodated and looked
after by the institution. In such a case, as often
happens, the cooking and the cleaning, the bed-
making and service, may often be done, at least
substantially by the Ashramites themselves. They
may chant in spiritual ecstasy even as material
goods and services are made and served. They
may affectionately look after the guests, and, all
this they may do, not for wages but for the chancePage 47 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
to propitiate the Master, work selflessly and
acquire spiritual grace. It may well be that they
may have surrendered their lucrative employment
to come into the holy institution. It may also be
that they take some small pocket money from the
donations or takings of the institution. Nay more;
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, if the
substantive nature of the work, as distinguished
from trivial items, is rendered by voluntary wage-
less sishyas, it is impossible to designate the
institution as an industry, not-withstanding a
marginal few who are employed on a regular basis
for hire. The reason is that in the crucial,
substantial and substantive aspects of insti-
tutional life the nature of the relations between
the participants is non-indus-trial. Perhaps, when
Mahatma Gandhi lived in Sabarmati, Aurobindo
had his hallowed silence in Pondicherry, the
inmates belonged to this chastened brand. Even
now, in many foundations, centres, monasteries,
holy orders and Ashrams in the East and in the
West, spiritual fascination pulls men and women
into the precincts and they work tirelessly for the
Maharishi or Yogi or Swamiji and are not wage-
earners in any sense of the term. Such people are
not workmen and such institutions are not
industries despite some menials and some
professionals in a vast complex being hired. WePage 48 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
must look at the predominant character of the
institution and the nature of the relations result-
ing in the production of goods and services. Stray
wage-earning employees do not shape the soul of
an institution into an industry.”
26. As against the above decisions, various Hon’ble High
Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court have applied the decision
in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board
(supra) to the facts of the case in the following decisions,
which are relied upon on behalf of the appellant:-
(1) Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan vs.
B.D. Borude, I.T. Maharashtra, reported in
1987(1) LLJ 81 (Bombay)(2) Workmen of M/s.Baikuntha Nath Debasthan
Trust (Baikuntha Nath Debasthan Mandir Trust)
Rep. By Paschimbanga Byabasayi Sramik
Sengstha vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
1990(2) CalLT 42(3) Rakesh Kumar vs. Commissioner-cum-deputy
Commissioner, Baba, reported in 1991(1) CLJ (HP)
302(4) Devadeveshwar Sansthan Parvati And
Page 49 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Kothrud vs. Sushila Raghu Kadu, reported in
2002(4) LLJ 28(5) Sri Nathji Bhandar vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in 2011(2) CalHN 874.
(6) Gajanan Maharaj Sanathan vs. Gajanan
Karamchari Sangh, reported in 2002(10) SCC
531″
27. In view of the facts of the present case, when the
respondent No.1 – Trust is managing Shri Saibaba Temple
where, the devotees gathered together for prayers and
worship and they are provided with Ladus manufactured in
the Temple then, it cannot be said that merely because they
are few servants employed by the respondent No.1 – Trust
including Pujari for a main and substantive nature of the
activity is the prayers and worship only and, therefore, it is
not possible to designate the respondent No.1 – Trust as an
‘Industry’, notwithstanding a marginal few who are employed
on regular basis for hire as the crucial, substantial and
substantive aspects of the institutional life of the respondent
No.1 – Trust is the nature of the relations between the
participants is non-industrial. Therefore, as held by the
Page 50 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Hon’ble Apex Court, we must look at the predominant
character of the institution and the nature of relations
resulting in production of goods and services in absence of
any material on record to demonstrate that the employees
engaged on ordinary economic terms with condition of service
as in other business institution and more particularly, when
none of the activities is shown to have organisational
comparability to other profit making institution.
28. Therefore, the respondent No.1 – Trust cannot be
considered as an ‘Industry’ within the definition of Section 2(j)
of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court, therefore, could not have
assumed the jurisdiction under the provisions of the I.D. Act
to adjudicate the Reference made by the competent
Government under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
29. Considering the above conspectus of law, the other
question which is required to be considered on the ground
that assuming for a while, the respondent No.1 – Trust falls
within the definition of ‘Industry’, whether the appellant –
Pujari would be covered by the definition of ‘Workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not.
Page 51 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Burmah Shell Oil
Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (supra), has held
that a person may not be a workman even though he does not
come within the exceptions under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
If the duties of a person is neither clerical nor manual, he
cannot fall within the definition of ‘Workman’ under the I.D.
Act, and the Industrial Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the Reference.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the various
types of activities carried out by the persons, has examined as
to whether such type of person carrying out the different
activities would be covered by the definition of ‘Workman’ or
not. So far as the Transport Engineer is concerned, it is held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Transport Engineer cannot
be considered as a ‘Workman’ as there is combination of
supervisory duties of the work of repair and maintenance,
servicing and fabrication etc. Similarly, the District Engineer
was also held to be not a ‘Workman’. The Foreman
(Chemicals), Chemists were held to be ‘Workman’, but the
Sales Engineering Representative is held to be not a
Page 52 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
‘Workman’ as he was neither employed for clerical work nor
manual work but, only does an ancillary job for promoting
sales and giving advise.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Miss. A.
Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and
Others (supra), while considering the case of a teacher in an
educational institution, as a workman or not, has held as
under:-
“2. The appellant, Miss A. Sundarambal, was
appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by
the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary at
Caranzalem, Goa. Her services were terminated
by the Management by a letter dated April 25,
1975. After she failed in her several efforts in
getting the order of termination cancelled, she
raised an industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer under the Act. The
conciliation proceedings failed and the
Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu by his letter
dated May 2, 1982. On receipt of the report the
government considered the question whether it
could refer the matter for adjudication under
Section 10(1) (c) of the Act but on reaching the
conclusion that the appellant was not a ‘workman’Page 53 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
as defined in the Act which alone would have
converted a dispute into an industrial dispute as
defined in Section 2(k) of the Act, it declined to
make a reference. Thereupon, the appellant filed a
writ petition before the High Court of Bombay,
Panaji Bench, Goa for issue of a writ in the nature
of mandamus requiring the government to make a
reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act to a
Labour Court to determine the validity of the
termination of her services. The said writ petition
was registered as Special Leave Application No.
59 of 1983. That petition was opposed by the
respondents. After hearing the parties concerned,
the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that the appellant was not a workman by its
judgment dated September 5, 1983. Aggrieved by
the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has
filed this appeal by special leave.
6. Thus it is seen that even though an
educational institution has to be treated as an
industry in view of the decision in the
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.
R. Rajappa the question whether teachers in
an educational institution can be considered
as workmen still remains to be decided.
8. In order to be a workman, a person should
be one who satisfies the following conditions:
(i) he should be a person employed in an
Page 54 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
industry for hire or reward; (ii) he should be
engaged in skilled or unskilled manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work; and
(iii) he should not be a person falling under
any of the four clauses, i.e.. (i) to (iv)
mentioned in the definition of ‘workman’ in
Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition also
provides that a workman employed in an
industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire
or reward includes any such person who has
been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, an
industrial dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute.
9. We are concerned in this case primarily
with the meaning of the words ‘skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or
clerical work’. If an employee in an industry is
not a person engaged in doing work falling in
any of these categories, he would not be a
workman at all even though he is employed in
an industry. The question for consideration
before us is whether a teacher in a school falls
under any of the four categories, namely, a
person doing any skilled or unskilled manual
work, supervisory work, technical work or
clerical work. If he does not satisfy any one of
Page 55 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the above descriptions he would not be a
workman even though he is an employee of an
industry as settled by this Court in May and
Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen. In that case
this Court had to consider the question
whether a person employed by a
pharmaceutical firm as a representative (for
canvassing orders) whose duties consisted
mainly of canvassing orders and any clerical
or manual work that he had to do was only
incidental to his main work of canvassing
could be considered as a workman as defined
in the Act. Dealing with the said question
Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) observed thus:
A ‘workman’ was then defined as
any person employed in any
industry to do any skilled or
unskilled manual or clerical work
for hire or reward. Therefore,
doing manual or clerical work was
necessary before a person could
be called a workman. This
definition came for consideration
before industrial tribunals and it
was consistently held that the
designation of the employee was
not of great moment and what was
of importance was the nature of
his duties. If the nature of the
duties is manual or clerical, thenPage 56 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the person must be held to be a
workman. On the other hand if
manual or clerical work is only a
small part of the duties of the,
person concerned and incidental
to his main work which is not
manual or clerical, then such a
person would not be a workman. It
has, therefore. to be seen in each
case from the nature of the duties
whether a person employed is a
workman or not, under the
definition of that word as. it
existed before the amendment of
1956. The nature of the duties of
Mukerjee is not in dispute in this
case and the only question
therefore is whether looking to the
nature of the duties it can be said
that Mukerjee was a workman
within the meaning of Section 2(s)
as it stood at the relevant time.
We find from the nature of the
duties assigned to Mukerjee that
his main work was that of
canvassing and any clerical or
manual work that he had to do
was incidental to his main work of
canvassing and could not take
more than a small fraction of the
time for which he had to work. InPage 57 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
the circumstances the tribunal’s
conclusion that Mukerjee was a
workman is incorrect. The tribunal
seems to have been led away by
the fact that Mukerjee had no
supervisory duties and had to
work under the directions of his
superior officers. That, how-ever.
would not necessarily mean that
Mukerjee’s duties were mainly
manual or clerical. From what the
tribunal itself has found it is clear
that Mukerjee’s duties were
mainly neither clerical nor
manual. Therefore, as Mukerjee
was not a workman, his case
would not be covered by the
Industrial Disputes Act and the
tribunal would have no jurisdiction
to order his reinstatement. We.
therefore. set aside the order of
the tribunal directing
reinstatement of Mukerjee along
with other reliefs.
10. The court held that the employee
Mukerjee involved in that case was not a
workman under Section 2(s) of the Act
because he was not mainly employed to do
any skilled or unskilled manual or clericalPage 58 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
work for hire or reward. which were the only
two classes of employees who qualified for
being treated as ‘workman’ under
the definition of the expression ‘workman’ in
the Act, as it stood then. As a result of the
above decision, in order to give protection
regarding security of employment and other
benefits to sales representatives, Parliament
passed a separate law entitled the Sales
Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service)
Act, 1976. It is no doubt true that after the
events leading to the above decision took
place Section 2(s) of the Act was amended by
including persons doing technical work as
well as supervisory work. The question for
consideration is whether even after the
inclusion of the above two classes of
employees in the definition of the expression
workman’ in the Act a teacher in a school can
be called a workman. We are of the view that
the teachers employed by educational
institutions whether the said institutions are
imparting primary, secondary, graduate or
post-graduate education cannot be called as
‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s)
of the Act. Imparting of education which is the
main function of teachers cannot be
considered as skilled or unskilled manual
work or supervisory work or technical work or
clerical work. Imparting of education is in the
nature of a mission or a noble vocation. APage 59 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
teacher educates children, he moulds their
character, builds up their personality and
makes them fit to become responsible
citizens. Children grow under the care of
teachers. The clerical work, if any they may
do. is only incidental to their principal work of
teaching. We agree with the reasons given by
the High Court for taking the view that
teachers cannot be treated as ‘workmen’ as
defined under the Act. It is not possible to
accept the suggestion that having regard to
the object of the Act. all employees in an
industry except those falling under the four
exceptions (1) to (iv) in Section 2(s) of the Act
should be treated as workmen. The
acceptance of this argument will render the
words ‘to do any skilled or unskilled manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work
meaningless. A liberal construction as
suggested would have been possible only in
the absence of these words. The decision in
Mav and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen
precludes us from taking such a view. We,
therefore, hold that the High Court was right
in holding that the appellant was not a
‘workman’ though the school was an industry
in view of the definition of ‘workman’ as it
now stands.
11. We may at this stage observe that
teachers as a class cannot be denied thePage 60 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
benefits of social justice. We are aware of the
several methods adopted by unscrupulous
managements to exploit them by imposing on
them unjust conditions of service. In order to
do justice to them it is necessary to provide
for an appropriate machinery so that teachers
may secure what is rightly due to them. In a
number of States in India laws have been
passed for enquiring into the validity of illegal
and unjust terminations of services of
teachers by providing for appointment of
judicial tribunals to decide such cases. We are
told that in the State of Goa there is no such
‘Act in force. If it is so, it is time that the State
of Goa takes necessary steps to bring into
force an appropriate legislation providing for
adjudication of disputes between teachers and
the managements of the educational
institutions. We hope that this lacuna in the
legislative area will be filled up soon.”
33. In the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional
Manager, LIC and others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has
considered the issue as to whether the apprentice would be a
‘Workman’ or not and has held as under:-
“34. The definition of “workman” as contained in
Section 2(s) of the h Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Page 61 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
includes an apprentice, but a “workman” defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must
conform to the requirements laid down therein
meaning thereby, inter alia, that he must be
working in one or the other capacities mentioned
therein and not otherwise.
36. A “workman” within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must not
only establish that he is not covered by the
provisions of the Apprentices Act but must further
establish that he is employed in the establishment
for the purpose of doing any work contemplated in
the definition. Even in a case where a period of
apprenticeship is extended, a further written
contract carrying out such intention need not be
executed. But in a case where a person is allowed
to continue without extending the period of
apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary
implication and regular work is taken from him,
he may become a workman. A person who claims
himself to be an apprentice has certain rights and
obligations under the statute.
37. In case any person raises a contention that his
status has been changed from apprentice to a
workman, he must plead and prove the requisite
facts. In absence of any pleading or proof that
either by novation of the contract or by reason of
the conduct of the parties, such a change has
been brought about, an apprentice cannot be heldPage 62 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
to be a workman.”
34. In the case of Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. (supra),
the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of definition of
‘Workman’ to professionals and it is held that the
professionals can never be termed as ‘Workman’ under any
law.
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Gupta vs.
Glaxo-Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) has considered
the effect of amendment brought in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act
and has determined the factors to be considered or to find out
whether a particular employee is workman or not, as under:-
“18. It is not in dispute that the nomenclature is
really not of any consequence. Whether a
particular employee comes within the definition of
workman has to be decided factually, In fact, it
has been found as a matter with reference to
various factual aspects that the duties undertaken
by the c appellant overwhelmingly fell in the
managerial cadre. So far as the nature of work is
concerned, the Division Bench of the High Court
took note of several aspects as reflected in para
29 of the judgment. The same reads as follows:
Page 63 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
“In the evidence adduced on behalf
of the Company, its Director, Shri
Rustam Padam Bharucha deposed
that the duties of the appellant were
to represent the Company in
conciliation proceedings, before d
government authorities under the
Factories Act, the ESI Act, the PF
Act, the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, to represent the
management as an enquiry officer or
as the management’s representative
in domestic enquiries, to guide and
advise the management’s
representative in domestic enquiries,
to advise him about the line of cross-
examination in such enquiries,
advise about the quantum of e
punishment to be inflicted in
disciplinary proceedings. To give
advise on queries raised by the
management pertaining to the
interpretation of statutes or
settlement with the unions or
regarding enquiries raised by
government authorities, to brief
witnesses, to prepare drafts for the
perusal of counsel, to brief counsel
on facts as well as law, to be present
in court when the arguments werePage 64 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
taking place in judicial matters
related f to the Company, to keep in
touch with the latest case laws and
amendments to the labour
legislations, to ensure that the
management fulfilled its obligations
under the labour legislations and to
advise the management on
provisions of settlement.”
25. In Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron
& Steel Labour Board it was held that while
deciding the status of the person, nature of work
is really relevant. The High Court has referred to
the evidence of the appellant. He had admitted in
his evidence that apart from the advice to the
management from time to time, he had other
independent functions such as preparation of
draft enquiry reports and conducting domestic
enquiries. In his cross-examination he had further
admitted that he had tendered legal advice in all
the four branches and factory of the Company at
Worli. He also admitted that on many occasions he
had drafted management enquiry and it was his
duty to hold conferences with the advocates in
relation to the Company’s acts. He also admitted
that as an employee in the category of
management staff, his conditions of service were
different than those provided for the workers of
the Company. He also admitted that leave given to
him were not applicable under the settlement. He
Page 65 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
also admitted that he was covered under the
pension scheme which did not apply under the
settlement with employees.”
36. The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.
Adyanthaya and Others (supra) wherein, it is held that the
Medical Representatives would not fall in the definition of
‘Workman’ as they are neither skilled workers nor are they
technical or operational workers and, therefore, their work is
not covered by any type of works mentioned in the main body
of the definition. Similarly, in the facts of the case, the work
carried out by the Pujari of worshiping and doing Puja in the
Temple can neither be considered as a skilled, technical nor
operational to fall within the definition of ‘Workman’.
37. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sai Bhakta
Samaj (Regd.) (supra), though held that the Bhakta Samaj was
covered under the definition of ‘Industry’, it was held that the
Pujari in Temple cannot be held as workman, relying upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.
Adyanthaya and Others (supra). It was further held that the
Page 66 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Pujari in a Temple does not do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and Pooja
by a Pujari is an application of his knowledge of religious
hymns and bhajans and aarties which he has to recite in the
Temple, which can never be considered by a work specified in
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
38. Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
the case of Ram Kishan Sharma (supra), has held that duties
of Pujari in Temple would not fall within the definition of
‘Workman’.
39. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of
Radhakrishna Bhakta (supra), has held as under:-
“[3] ….. 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 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 1990-1- LLJ-192
wherein Archak or a priest in a temple was held
not to be a “workman” within the meaning of thePage 67 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
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.”
40. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of A. Kesava
Bhatt (supra), while considering the issue as to whether a
Priest in a Temple would fall within the definition of
‘Workman’ or not and he cannot be equated with a mere
wage-earner so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court, has considered the role of the Priest since ancient
times as under:-
“Even from very ancient times, priests and
law had intimate connection. A historic
evaluation on this aspect is available from a
recent study, “Lord Chancellor” by Nicholas
Underhill. (Its young author had critically
commented upon the evaluation and working
of the office of Lord Chancellor from early
times and in the course of such a critical
evaluation, he has not spared Lord Campbell
and his book “Lives of Chancellors” from
harsh comments). Due to very many historicPage 68 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
reasons, laws have sometimes reacted to
priests unkindly. Perhaps, the most horrifying
exercise was that of the English Parliament,
when in 1530 it enacted that the Bishop of
Rochester’s cook be boiled to death.
Comparatively less hard was a recent
legislation attempted by the State of Ten-
nessee in America when it imposed under the
statute a prohibition against priests entering
politics. The prohibition was declared
unconstitutional by the American court. See
Paul A. Mc Daniel v. Selma Cash Paty(1).
Priests have played prominent parts in
the history of mankind. Some, by their
humanism, live through history; like father
Damien, who, like Him, nursed and cured
many a lachrymose leper. Francis Xavier,
known for his “vigorous self-devotion, and
incredible labour for no wisable reward”; who
usually went on foot, and without shoes, living
only on roasted rice, which he begged as he
went on and slept on the ground with a stone
under his head. The Christian priests (and the
nuns who, like well-lit candles, spread around
them much of haloed light, even while quickly
melting into extinction) have added several
glorious chapters in the compilation of the
history of enlightenment of India. The endless
saga of sacrifice associated with a priest even
generated a feeling that only the rough andPage 69 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
hardlooking, could pursue a priest’s life. It is
such a mental make up that prompted an
innocent question by a character in “Princess
Kathilde” by Marguerite Castillon Du Perron:
“How can a man become a priest when he is
so good looking.” However, as in other
professions too, deviations have been
detected in Divinity. William Ralph Inge in his
“Lay Thoughts of a Dean” quotes Colet as
referring to, “Pestilent and pernicious traits
seen in the evil and wicked life of priests”.
The portrait of a Cardinal by Marguerite
Castillon Du Perron with special reference to
his sleeping habit is fictional and not factual.
However, Howard, who heralded the prison
reform in England and in Europe was factual
in his observation, and effectual in his
condemnation of the luxuriant life of the holy
fathers he saw at the Capuchin Convent at
Prague. Howard recorded as having seen the
monastery as “a house of revelling and
drunkenness”, that shattered his notion about
the priests as persons “who had retired from
the world to live a life of abstemiousness and
prayer”. A Russian Priest, very close to the
sceptre and crown, now lives in the musical
lines Rasputin, Rasputin, lover of the Russian
Queen.
The hiatus between the ideal and the
actual in relation to the priestly class was
Page 70 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
visible in the Indian setting too. The ideal is
referred to by Robert Lingat in “The Classical
Law of India”. There is a pointed discussion
on the role and the duties of a “Purohita” at
page 217 reading:
“Thus the King is bound to choose
amongst the Brahmins a purohita who
will be his chief counsellor. Agreement
between King and purohita is regarded
by Gautama (XI. 12-14) to be the very
symbol of harmony between the two
powers. And Vasistha (XIX. 4) recalls that
it is written in the Veda, “A realm where
a Brahmin is appointed purohita
flourishes”. The role of the purohita is
multiple, and the translation chaplain
poorly indicates what his functions are.
He is far from being simply a priest with
the duty to see that the King fulfils his
religious obligations. Elsewhere Manu
(VII.78) and Yajnavalkya (I.314)
distinguish him from officiating priests
whose duty it was to celebrate ritual
ceremonies. Yajnavalkya (312) demands
of him knowledge of astrology in order to
know the influence of the planets and to
be able to neutralise their effects if they
are sinister; he should also be versed in
the Atharva Veda and know the required
spells to be cast, and magic prayers. ThePage 71 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
same verse requires him to be
knowledgeable in the art of politics
(dandaneethi). In reality, the purohita is
the brain of the King. As a servant of
dharma he is a servant of the State. For
the rest, he occupies a singular position
by reason of his functions. Vijnesvara
(Mit., on Yaj., 1.353) ranks him amongst
the ministers (mantrin) and Manu (XII.
46) classes him, with kings and
kshatriyas, amongst those whose future
destiny is dominated by rajas (‘energy’,
‘passion’)”.
A very illuminating judicial decision about the
priestly class and its degeneration in later
times is seen in Annaya Tantri v. Ammakka
Bengsu(2). That dealt with the competence of
a Hindu female to succeed to the office of
“archaka” in a temple and the emoluments
attached thereto. She was not incompetent by
reason of her sex – was the majority decision.
Seshagiri Ayyar, J., in a very illuminating
order of reference (which fortunately forms
part of the reported decision) indicated how
from the point of view of the worshipper, it
was the fitness of the archaka for the
discharge of the duties that had to be
considered, and how from the point of view of
archaka, the question of secular rights was
more important. A historic background is
Page 72 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
furnished thus:
“In the Vedas and in the ancient
Smritis, we do not hear of the founding
of temples. It is to the puranic age that
we owe their existence. In Manu’s
days, the only religious teacher was
the ascetic sanyasi. He gave
instructions to his disciples who, in
their turn, spread the light of wisdom
among the lay people. There were no
places of worship, and no images to
worship. It is to Buddha that India
owes the introduction of fixed places if
worship and ordained orders of
preachers…… Temples for the worship
of Siva and Vishnu were established
mostly by non-Aryans at or about this
time to circumvent the Buddhistic
influence.
The second period begins with the
advent of Sankara. He found that the
ancient worship of the elements was
losing hold on the popular mind, and
that the people were being led by the
precepts of Buddhism into the track of
atheism. He had to fight blind
orthodoxy behind him and materialism
ahead of him. He adopted a
compromise.”
Page 73 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
The decision recounted how rich
endowments were made for the upkeep of
temples. Trusted service had, however, to be
found. It had always been the belief in India
that “the nearer a man is to God, the farther is
he from Him.” It is unnecessary for the
purpose of this case to delve deep into, or
deal at length with, the history of the temples.
Yet, a reference to a decline in the priestcraft
as made therein, may furnish a background to
the present sight and fight in the case, when a
priest had taken the road to the Labour Court.
The slokas of Vaidyanatha Dikshitar (together
with their translations by Manghat Krishna
Menon) were given in that decision. One sloka
is particularly striking. It reads:
The translation reads:
“A Vipra, who, though he may be well-
versed in the four Vedas is desirous of
getting money, and who performs the
worship of the Gods for the sake of
another will be considered equal to a
Chan-dala.”
“The question pointedly arose in the context
of industrial jurisprudence itself in a decision
rendered by the House of Lords in Davies v.
Page 74 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Presbyterian Church of Wales(3). A dismissed
pastor applied to an Industrial Tribunal under
the Employment Protection (Consolidation)
Act, 1978. He claimed that he had been
employed by the Church under a contract of
service and that he had been unfairly
dismissed. The House of Lords held that an
Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to
determine the reasonableness of such a
termination. It was contended that on his
appointment, a paster agreed to preach,
conduct religious services and give religious
instructions, to comfort the sick and bereaved
and to propagate the faith in his pastorate for
the benefit of the Church and its members;
that he was employed by the Church full-time
and in consideration he became entitled to a
stipend and a manse. On these factors, it was
claimed that the pastor was a servant
employed under a contract of service.
The contention was, however, repelled. The
House of Lords observed (at p. 709):
“The duties owed by the pastor to
the Church are not contractual or
enforceable. A pastor is called and
he accepts the call. He does not
devote his working life but his whole
life to the Church and his religion,
his duties are defined and hisPage 75 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
activities are dictated not by
contract but by conscience. He is the
servant of God…… duties owed by
the Church to the pastor are not
contractual.” (Emphasis supplied).
Differences and details notwithstanding,
a basic approach is indicated by the above
decision, in the context of a cleavage of views
regarding the nature and character of
services by a person in the spiritual field.
V. P. Gopalan Nambiar, J., as he then
was, took the view in Superintendent,
Koodalmanickom Devaswom v. Kunhan Karthe
(4), that:
“…that part of the Koodalmanickom
Devaswom which is engaged in the
collection of rent of its properties
and maintenance of records of these
collections, is an ‘establishment’ as
given in the definition of
‘commercial establishment in the
Kerala Shops Act, 1960.”
The decision of this Court on this aspect
in The Devaswom Board’s Maramath
Department case and Jaganath Temple
case(5), decided by the Orissa High Court
Page 76 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
have been referred to in that case. The
discussion could indicate that the conclusion
was reached by the learned Judge in a halting
manner, as evident from the sentence
reading:
“…the only question is whether the
Devaswom fills the bill for the
limited purpose of the Act and not
whether it can be said to be a
commercial establishment for all
purposes, whatsoever.” (Emphasis
supplied)The learned Judge after referring to the
decisions rendered in the background of the
Industrial Disputes Act, chose to emphasise
the fact that “it would be inappropriate to
import into the Shops and Commercial
Establishments Act the definition of the term
“Industry” as given in the Industrial Disputes
Act.” It was also observed that the definition
of the term “commercial establishment” in the
Kerala Shops and Establishments Act was
“wider than what is contained in the Madras
Travancore-Cochin counterparts.”
The case was taken up in appeal. The
subiect-matter was compromised during the
pendency of the appeal. The Division Bench
Page 77 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
took care to set aside that decision, and left
the matter “open for consideration in an
appropriate case untrammelled by anything
said in that judgment.”
When an employee of a Thirumullapulli
Devaswom was dismissed the question again
sprang up. Namboodiripad, J., had a different
approach and a different conclusion. See
Thirumullapulli Devaswom v. Commissioner
(6). The approach was more from the point of
view of the nature and features of the
establishment. A deep insight into, and an
intimacy with the internal working of a
temple enabled the learned Judge to have his
views in sharp focus. With great respect, I
endorse that approach and conclusion. See
the observations (at p. 142):
“Devaswom’ is a compendious
expression taking in a temple, its
property, its management, etc. Certain
employees of a temple will have to
discharge duties which are exclusively
concerned with the performance of
religious rites in accordance with
Sastras, the traditions of the temple,
custom, etc… Every person employed
by a Devaswom normally discharges
functions pertaining to the proper
functioning of the temple, the
Page 78 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
paramount object of which is to main-
tain the place of worship in proper
condition for the benefit of the
devotees…. the mere fact that certain
employees are directed to discharge
non-religious or administrative
functions does not mean that the
persons employed by the Devaswom
are ‘mainly engaged in office work’.”
The learned Judge sought to buttress his view
by drawing on general observations contained
in V. Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakaran(7).
That decision which concerns a lawyer’s office
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakaran(8).
It is unnecessary in this case to consider
whether other employees of a Devaswom will
adequately satisfy the requirements of the
relevant definition of “employee” or
“workman.” A poojary or a priest stands away
from the general queue, with his distinctive
dress, decorum, discipline and devotion, and
with his distinct duties and subtle services.
There is all the difference between a
mahout, cook or clerk, active in the precincts
of the temple or its corridors and office
rooms, and a priest placed in the sanctum
sanctorum and silently saying his prayers.
Page 79 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
An evaluation of the evolution of the
office of archaka or priest, as priest, as
available from the rich legal literature,
dissuades me from equating him to a mere
wage earner; and to treat his services as
manual or clerical in the sense in which those
terms are employed in the setting of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The deity he
propitiates or the God he serves, cannot be
looked upon as a profit producing scheme or
set up. The owner of a temple cannot,
therefore, be equated to an industrial or
commercial employer. The petitioner cannot,
therefore, be treated as a workman, coming
under that term as defined in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The order of the Labour
Court on this point is, therefore, correct.
Consequently, there is no scope for
interference with the order for that reason
too”
41. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M.R.
Damon (Ms.), Mission Superintendent, P.B. No.17, Andivilla
Bungalow, Kodaikanal and Another (supra), while considering
the issue as to whether the Pastor in Church can be said to be
a ‘Workman’ or not, it was held that the Pastor cannot be
considered as a ‘Workman’, as under:-
Page 80 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
“9. While dealing with the duties of a Pastor and
his relationship with the Church, the House of
Lords, in the decision in Davies v. Presbyterian
Church of Wales, 1986 (1) All ER 705, have held
as follows:
“My Lords, it is possible for a man to be
employed as a servant or as an
independent contractor to carry out
duties which are exclusively spiritual. But
in the present case the pastor of the
Church cannot point to any contract
between himself and the Church. The
book of rules does not contain terms of
employment capable of being offered and
accepted in the course of a religious
ceremony. The duties owned by the
pastor to the Church are not contractual
or enforceable. A pastor is called and
accepts the call. He does not devote his
working life but his whole life to the
Church and his religion. His duties are
defined and his activities are dictated not
by contract but by conscience. He is the
Servant of God. If his manner of serving
God is not acceptable to the Church, then
his pastorate can be brought to an end by
the Church in accordance with the rules.
The law will ensure that a pastor is notPage 81 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
deprived of his salaried pastorate save in
accordance with the provisions of the
book of rules but an industrial tribunal
cannot determine whether a reasonable
Church would sever the link between
minister and congregation.
The duties owned by the Church to the
pastor are not contractual. The law
imposes on the Church a duty not to
deprive a pastor of his office which
carries a stipend, save in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the book
of rules. The law imposes on the Church
a duty to administer its property in
accordance with the provisions of the
book of rules.”
42. In view of the above dictum of law and analysis carried
out, it is apparent that the appellant being a Pujari, looking
after the Temple, would not fall within the scope of the
‘Workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act because, a Pujari
in a Temple does not do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work but, he
only applies his knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans and
aarties and recites the same in the Temple and merely helping
the other Temple activities incidentally, cannot be considered
Page 82 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/2319/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
to be work specified in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
43. In view of the above foregoing reasons, no interference
is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order passed by
the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
Page 83 of 83
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:13:26 IST 2026
