A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held that a Pujari of a temple is not covered under the definition of ‘workman’ as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

BRIEF FACTS

The Appellant was employeed as a Pujari of a Temple by the Respondent. His services were brought to any end by the Respondent, against which a dispute was raised by the appellant. Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan referred the same to the Labour Court, Udaipur for adjudication. 

CASE OF THE APPELLANT  

The statement of claim of Appellant before the Labour Court stated that the Appellant entered the employment of the respondent as Chowkidar /Pujari on fixed salary Rs.2500/- per month. However, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 31.07.2005 without assigning any reasons. The was further mentioned that he completed 240 days of service (in a calendar year) and therefore, termination of his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was contended to invalid and void.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENT 

It was argued by the Respondent that the Appellant’s services for the work of Pujari was made available to the respondent by the contractor M/s. R.S.D. Enterprises, Udaipur. The appellant was working under the control of the contractor and the salary was also being paid to him by the contractor. A preliminary objection was raised that the contractor who employed the appellant is a necessary party.

It was also contended that the appellant was employed as Pujari in the temple and since the Pujari does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and the temple does not fall within the definition of ‘industry’, the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable.

DECISION OF THE LABOUR COURT

The Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the temple does not fall within the definition of ‘industry’ and the appellant being employed as Pujari does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and consequently, Appellant’s claim was rejected by the impugned award.

SINGLE BENCH: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that he was appointed as Watchman-cum-Pujari and therefore, the decision of the Labour Court which proceeds on the premise that the appellant was employed only as Pujari is erroneous. 

The Single Bench came to the conclusion that in absence of any evidence brought on record indicating that the appellant has performed any work other than that of Pujari, the plea sought to be raised that the appellant had worked as Watchman-cum-Pujari cannot be countenanced.

DIVISION BENCH: REASONING & DECIISON

Contrary to the Appellant’s claims, the Court observed that the appellant entered the employment of the respondent on being appointed on temporary basis for a period of 3 months on the fixed salary of Rs.2500/- per month on the post of ‘Pujari’ and not on the post of ‘Watchman-cum-Pujari’ as claimed by the appellant.

The Court further noted that as far as Appellant’s duties were concerned, it was specifically mentioned that the appellant will perform ‘sewa puja’ in Girdhar Gopal Temple and shall stay in the temple premises. The duties to be performed by the Pujari have been specified, which also does not include the duties of Watchman as claimed. 

Merely because, the appellant and other pujaris were directed to stay in the temple premises in the night, no inference can be drawn that the appellant was made to discharge the duties of Watchman. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the directions to the appellant to stay in the temple premises by way of accommodation cannot make the status of the appellant different from that of Pujari. It is true that the designation of an employee is not conclusive to bring him within the definition of ‘workman’ set out in Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 but then, for determination as to whether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not, the test is what is the main work assigned to him. If he does some manual work as ancillary or incidental to the main work assigned to him, cannot have an effect of such employee being covered by definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947.”

Thus, the Court held that appellant being provided accommodation within the temple premises and permitted to stay in the premises in the night, in no manner, leads to conclusion that he was appointed as Chowkidar and was assigned the duties of the said post. Upholding the findings of the Lower Courts, the Bench concluded that: 

the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the appellant being employed as Pujari was not covered by definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Further, even if it is assumed that the respondent, employer of the appellant, being not solely engaged in the maintaining the temple falls within the definition of ‘industry’ given in Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, the appellant being not a workman, the provisions of Act of 1947 are not attracted in the matter and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred by the appropriate government.”

HELD: For the aforementioned reasons, the Court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and did not feel the need to interfere with the impugned order.

CASE DETIALS

Before: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Pushkarlal V Administrative Officer, Maharana Pratap Smarak, Udaipur, Moti Magri, Udaipur

Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 171/2020

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas

Date: 15th September, 2020

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Monika Rahar