The provision in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, allowing the nomination of a representative of the employees of the Devaswom by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers, is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate the fundamental rights of the employees.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

This Original Petition filed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees' Association through its Secretary challenges the constitutional validity of S.4(1)(d) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978. When the Original Petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge also ordered that this Original Petition also be listed with other connected Original Petitions which were pending before a larger bench. That is how this Original Petition has come up before us for decision.

2. The famous Guruvayoor temple in the erstwhile Malabar of this State was originally governed by a scheme decree and the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act; HR & CE Act for short. In the year 1971 Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971, Act 6 of 1971 was enacted by the Kerala Legislature. Under S.3 of that Act administration, control and management of the Devaswom was vested in a committee constituted in the manner provided by that Act. The Committee was to be known as Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and it was to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. S.4 of the Act provided that the committee was to consist of (a) the Zamorin Raja who shall be the Chairman, (b) the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor, who shall be the Vice Chairman, (c) the Administrator, ex-officio; (d) the Chairman of Guruvayoor Township Committee provided he is a person professing Hindu Religion, Ex-officio, (e) the Thantri of the temple, Ex-officio, (f) a representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Government and (g) not more than eleven persons nominated by the Government of whom one shall be a Harijan. Though sub-s.2 of S.4 provided that the nominee under clause (g) of S.4(1) should be a person-who professes the Hindu religion, no such specific qualification was mentioned regarding a representative of the employees of the Devaswom to be nominated by the Government. But S.19(8) provided that a person who di d not profess the Hindu religion shall be disqualified for being appointed as or for being an officer or servant of the Devaswom. Substantive provisions of the Act were struck down as unconstitutional by this Court in Krishnan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom (1979 KLT 350 (F.B.)). Among the Sections struck down was S.4 of the Act providing for the constitution of the Managing Committee. Accepting the decision of this Court and in the light of the directions contained there in the Legislature enacted Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978. Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971 was replaced by S.41 of Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, Act 14 of 1978.

S.4 related to the composition of the Committee in which the administration, control and management of the Devaswom was to vest in terms of S.3 of the Act. The Committee was to consist of (a) the Zamorin (b) Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor (c) the Thantri of the temple, Ex-officio (d) a representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers and (e) not more than five persons to be nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from among persons interested in the temple. The validity of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, Act 14 of 1978 was also challenged before this Court. In the decision in Narayanan Namboodiri v. State of Kerala (1985 KLT 629(FB)) the Full Bench struck down S.32 of the Act providing that no notification issued, order passed, decision made or proceedings or action token under the Act by the Government or the Commissioner shall be questioned in any Court of law. Ss.33 and 35 were directed to be read down. Clauses (d) and (e) of sub-s.1 of S.4 relating to nomination of members to the Committee by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers was directed to be interpreted as Hindus among the Council of Ministers having faith in temple worship. In other respects validity of the Act was upheld.

3. In the