Laxmi Narayan Shastri vs Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha Laxmi ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2728 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 20th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 3426/2011

         LAXMI NARAYAN SHASTRI                 ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. D. Moitra with Mr. R.D.
                              Sharma & Mr. Rajat Sharma,
                              Advocates.
                                     Versus
         SHRI SANATAN DHARAM SABHA
         LAXMI NARAYAN TEMPLE TRUST                           ..... Respondent
                      Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                     No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 29 th March, 2011 of the

Industrial Adjudicator holding the petitioner to be not a workman and the

consequent award dated 8th April, 2011 that the dispute raised by the

petitioner before the Industrial Adjudicator was thus not maintainable.

2. The petitioner claims to have been the Head Pujari of the famous

Birla Mandir at Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner

during the hearing has invited attention to the report dated 3 rd August, 1981

at the time of appointment of the petitioner recording that the petitioner has

passed Shastri education and is also an Acharya. The said document rather

shows the high qualifications of the petitioner in the field of priesthood.

The Industrial Adjudicator has premised the orders/award on the Sai

Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) v. Durga Prasad 2006 ILR 1241 where a Single

Judge of this Court held that a Pujari in a temple cannot be a workman.

The Industrial Adjudicator has also relied on a judgment of the Kerala

High Court in A . Kesava Bhatt v. Shree Ram Ambalam Trust 1989 (59)

FLR 379 also holding that a archaka or a priest in a temple is not a

workman and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

3. Not disagreeing with the view aforesaid and propriety demanding

that the same be followed, it has been enquired from the counsel for the

petitioner as to how the petitioner's case is different from that in Sai

Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) (supra). The said judgment is categorical. Though

the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish his case from

that in Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) but has invited attention to the judgment

of the Bombay High Court in Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain

Mahajan v. B.D. Borude 1987 (1) LLJ 81. However the Bombay High

Court in that case was concerned with the question whether the

"undertaking" of the society in that case was an industry within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act or not. In that context the Bombay

High Court refused to accede to the submission that since the society/trust

was running the temple and people visit the temple to secure spiritual

benefits, and not material benefits and was thus not an "industry" and held

that since the society/trust in that case was carrying out commercial

activities by letting out godowns, halls, shops etc., it could not be said that

the society was merely providing spiritual benefits and not material

benefits. Accordingly, the society was held to be an industry.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that some shops have been

carved out of Birla Mandir also and being used for sale of religious books,

flowers, ATM of banks and handicraft shops. It is also contended that the

petitioner was being paid provident fund though through Birla Brothers

Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund Institution.

5. I may notice that Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) also though holding a

Pujari to be not a workman held the temple to be otherwise an industry qua

the chowkidar employed therein. It will thus be seen that the Mumbai High

Court was not directly faced with the question of whether the Pujari is a

workman or not. Even though I entertain doubts as to whether a temple can

be said to be an "industry" but in the present case when the petitioner

claims to have been employed as a Head Priest and which can by no means

be said to be a small position and the counsel for the petitioner also admits

that the petitioner had assistants under/with him, no reason is found to

entertain the petition, the question raised being fully covered by Sai

Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) aforesaid.

6. Though the counsel for the petitioner has raised several other

grounds also as to the illegality of the termination of the petitioner but in

view of the aforesaid there is no need to go into those and the petitioner

would be at liberty to raise the same before the appropriate fora. There is

no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. The counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction that the alternative

remedy pursued by the petitioner would not be barred owing to limitation.

The only direction which can be given is that upon the petitioner applying

under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the same shall be sympathetically

considered.

Dasti under signature of the Court Master.

CM No.7145/2011 (for exemption).

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 20, 2011 pp