ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. Challenging the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in entertaining an industrial dispute raised by the 3rd respondent in ID No. 110/2017 against the petitioner/Temple on the ground that the Temple is not an industry and that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts leading to the lis as pleaded in this writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:

(a) The petitioner is Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam (hereinafter called as "Devasthanam/Temple"), situated at Simhachalam in Visakhapatnam District. It is a religious institution published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as "the Endowments Act"). The Devasthanam/Temple was also registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act. The management and administration of the Devasthanam/Temple is being governed by the provisions of the Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(b) The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam, addressed a letter dated 5.7.2008 to the management of Devasthanam requesting to utilize the services of the 3rd respondent, a Licensed Surveyor, on payment of remuneration to him. Accordingly, the services of the 3rd respondent, who is a Licensed Surveyor, were utilized by the Devasthanam/Temple temporarily on daily remuneration basis by allotting work to him only when there is requirement of his services.

(c) Subsequently, the authorities of the Devasthanam opined that the services of the 3rd respondent are not at all satisfactory as it has come to their notice that the 3rd respondent is acting against the interest of the Devasthanam/Temple in collusion with some persons, who have vested interest who are all private individuals. It is noticed that when the 3rd respondent was directed to identity the boundaries of the land of the Temple that he has colluded with some private individuals, who have vested interest and acted against the interest of the Temple. Therefore, the Devasthanam stopped utilizing his services since 30.7.2017. He is not a regular employee of the Devasthanam/Temple at any point of time.

(d) Therefore, challenging the action of the authorities of the Devasthanam in not utilizing the services of the 3rd respondent since 30.7.2017, the 3rd respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in ID No. 110 of 2017.

(e) The Devasthanam has filed a detailed counter in the said ID No. 110 of 2017 raising the issue of jurisdiction contending that the Devasthanam/Temple is not an industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the 3rd respondent, who is a Licensed Surveyor, will not fall under the definition of 'workman' to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In order to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and to raise an industrial dispute that there must be an industry and the 3rd respondent must be a workman. As the Devasthanam/Temple is not an industry and the 3rd respondent is not a workman that the said ID No. 110 of 2017 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, is not maintainable under law.

(f) It is their further case that the Temple is a Hindu Religious Institution. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Varu is the presiding deity in the Temple. The predominant function of the Devasthanam is to render spiritual benefit to Hindu public who comes to the Temple from all over the country. So, it cannot be treated as an industry. So, the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to the dispute. However, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has entertained the said ID No. 110 of 2017. It is without jurisdiction and the same is not sustainable under law.

(g) Therefore, the pet