Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 409
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple - Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority Payment of Gratuity Act & Others - Respondents
W.P. NOS. 17569 TO 17598 & 19559 OF 2000
Decided On : 13 March 2003
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the State rules, particularly Rules 26 to 30 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Service Rules, prevailed over the Payment of Gratuity Act and were applicable to employees of temples governed by the State rules.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act - Hindu Religious Institutions - Rules 26 to 30 - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to employees of Hindu temples governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. It highlights the conflict between the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the State rules, emphasizing the overriding effect of the State rules and the inapplicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to temple employees.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to employees of Hindu temples governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The temple sought to quash the proceedings of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, while individual employees sought a declaration that a specific rule of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Service Rules was ultra vires. The main contention was whether the State rules or the Payment of Gratuity Act applied to employees of the temples.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State rules, specifically Rules 26 to 30 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Service Rules, prevailed over the Payment of Gratuity Act. It held that the Payment of Gratuity Act had no application to employees of temples governed by the State rules, and therefore allowed the temple's petitions to quash the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act while dismissing the petitions filed by individual employees seeking a declaration.
Issues: The main issue was the conflict between the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the State rules governing gratuity for temple employees. The court also addressed the question of whether a specific rule of the State rules was ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the overriding effect of the State rules, particularly Rules 26 to 30 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Service Rules, and the inapplicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to temple employees. It emphasized that the State rules prevailed as they were earlier in point of time and had received the assent of the President.
Final Decision: The court allowed the temple's petitions to quash the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act and dismissed the petitions filed by individual employees seeking a declaration. It held that temple employees were entitled to claim gratuity in terms of the State rules, specifically Rules 26 to 30 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Service Rules.
COMMON ORDER
1. In W.P. Nos. 17569 to 17598 and 19559 of 2000, the petitioner temple has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the respective proceedings of the competent authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act (Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai) at Dindigul dated 16.7.99 as confirmed by the appellate authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act (Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai) the first respondent in his respective proceedings dated 2.8.2000, quash the same and declare that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act has no application insofar as the petitioners' institution is concerned.
2. W.P. No.17569 to 17598 and 19559 of 2000, the writ petition moved by Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple through its executive officer, challenging the proceedings of the Controlling Authority as affirmed by the appellate authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act holding that the writ petitioner Temple is liable to pay gratuity in terms of the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in respect of various employees employed in the said temple and different sums have been ordered to be paid.
3. W.P. No.6707 of 2001 has been filed by individual employee of Arulmigu Subramaniar Swamy Thirukoil, Tiruttani, seeking for a declaration that Rule 26 of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers & Servants) Service Rules as ultra vires. Identical reliefs have been prayed for in W.P. No.20201/00 by the employees, who were employed in Arulmigu Subramaniar Swamy Thirukoil, Tiruttani.
4. In respect of employees employed in various temples governed by the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers & Servants) Service Rules, 1964, is being challenged as violative of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, unenforceable. Such a contention has been advanced by the individual employees, who claim gratuity before the Controlling Authority in terms of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, while the temple authority have come before this Court challenging the proceedings of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act and also seek to contend that Rule 26 of the above rules alone will prevail and govern the services of the temple servant in respect of payment of gratuity.
5. According to the employees, the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, a later enactment, will overrule the provisions of the rules framed under The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and being an establishment as defined under The Payment of Gratuity Act, the employer temple is bound to pay gratuity at the rates determined by the Controlling Authority as affirmed by the appellate authority in terms of the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The question whether the temple is an establishment or other questions also arise for consideration. But the foremost contention being whether Rule 26 will apply or whether the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies in respect of those employees employed in the temples governed by The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, or the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act is enforceable even in respect of employees employed in the temple. Hence, it is essential to refer to the statutory rule itself.
6. Rules 26 to 30 of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964, which are relevant and it reads thus :-
"26. Gratuity : Every non-hereditary officer or servant who retires or dies after completing ten years of service in a religious institution included in the list published under Section 46 of the Act shall become eligible for a gratuity at the rate of half a month's salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of 15 month's salary.
Provided that this rule shall not apply to any such institution where the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is in force.
Explanation : (1) F
