These petitions are taken up for consideration together, Since the issues involved are identical.

2. In the first of the petitions, the Trustees who manage the Sri Venkataramana Temple and Hale Mariyamma Temple Kapu, Udupi District are the petitioners on behalf of the two temples. The challenge is to an order by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Mangalore, as well as an order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hassan Region, Hassan, dismissing the appeal against the order of the former.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the temples are managed by the Goudasaraswatha Brahmin Community, a religious denomination. And that the State has no control over the administration of these temples as there are no statutory provisions applicable to them.

4. It is stated that the third respondent was an erstwhile manager employed by the petitioners and that he had resigned from his job in the year 1994. But, had proceeded to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while negating his resignation. The reference is said to have been rejected by the Labour Court. During the pendency of those proceedings, the said respondent is said to have made an application before the second respondent, claiming gratuity benefit. That application was allowed and the petitioners were called upon to pay gratuity. The same was confirmed in appeal. The petitioners are hence before this Court.

5. The second appeal of the petitions is by the Shree Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kateel, Mangalore. If is contended therein that it is a Hindu temple which was earlier governed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and now governed under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

6. It is stated that the third respondent was an employee of the temple, whose application for grant of gratuity benefit before the Controlling Authority was allowed against the temple. The same was confirmed in appeal. The petitioner is hence before this Court.

7. It is contended by the petitioners that the Payment of Gratuity Act, is not applicable to the petitioners since they are not engaged in -any business, trade or profession and hence cannot be termed as an "establishment" under the Act. The authorities have overlooked the objections raised in this regard, while considering the applications for gratuity benefit, filed by erstwhile employees. The impugned orders are hence without jurisdiction.

8. The second of the writ petitioners would add that, being a temple governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, any claim for gratuity or service benefits could have been raised only under the provisions of that Act and that the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, would have no jurisdiction. And on merits would submit that the authorities have taken into consideration the post superannuating service in computing the total service period as being eligible for gratuity, which is wholly incorrect and against the law. It is further contended that even if the Payment of Gratuity Act were applicable to the temple, since a claim for all service benefits was also capable of being brought under the KHRI and CE Act, it was necessary to examine whether the employee would derive a greater benefit under the provisions of the said Act and to have relegated him to the remedies under the same and since the exercise of examining this aspect is not undertaken the order impugned may even be to the detriment of the claimants.

9. Reliance is placed on the case of Thirumullapulli Devaswom v Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The Kerala High Court has held in the above case that a devaswom would not come within the purview of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, having regard to the paramount object of the institution as well as the particular functions it discharges.

10.