Antony Dominic, J.

The question raised in this appeal is regarding the applicability of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to an employee of a Trust administering a Temple.

2. The respondent appointed the deceased husband of the appellant as an Attender. He joined service on 1.12.1976 and after 27 years of service, attained the age of superannuation and retired from Thiruvangad Sreeramaswami Temple. Being unsatisfied with the amount of gratuity paid under the rules framed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, he claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Overruling the objection that the Act was inapplicable to the temple, the controlling authority passed order directing that gratuity under the Act shall be paid and the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act. There orders were challenged in the writ petition filed by the first respondent.

3. Placing reliance on the judgments of this court in Thirumullapulli Devawom v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation [1979 (1) LLJ 398] and Narayanan Namboodiri and Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Another [1979 (2) LLJ 446], and concluding that having regard to the provisions of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, a temple is not a shop or establishment as defined in the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 or any other enactment applicable in the State, and that therefore the claimant would not be covered under the Act, the writ petition was allowed. It is this judgment, which is questioned before us.

4. We heard Sri. Ashok B. Shenoy, learned Amicus Curie, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

5. While considering the applicability of the provisions of the Act to an employee like the deceased, at the outset itself, it needs to be clarified, that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1951) and the rules framed thereunder contain detailed provisions for the administration and management of temples such as Thiruvangad Sreeramaswami Temple. As per Act 1951, administration of the temple is vested in the Trustees and vacancies in the temple shall be filled up by the Trustee in cases where office or service is not hereditary. Rules framed under the Act further show that such employees are entitled to gratuity under the Rules and such gratuity is to be paid on the recommendation of the Trustee. Therefore, the Trust which appointed the deceased claimant is the employer, who is vested with the statutory duty to pay gratuity to eligible employees.

6. In this context, it is relevant to examine Section 1(3) of the Act, which explains the applicability of the Act. This Section reads thus:

"Section 1(3): It shall apply to –

(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company;

(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months;

(c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."

7. A plain reading of this Section show that insofar as a Trust is concerned, clause (a) and in the absence of any notification as provided in clause (c), that provision also, is of no relevance. What is relevant is clause (b), a reading of which shows that the Act shall apply to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months. Therefore,