IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2319 of 2017 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/21883/2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

UMESHWAR AKSHAYWAR DUBEY Versus SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEVA MANDAL TRUST & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR AK CLERK(235) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 16/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.A.K. Clerk for the respondent No.1 – Trust.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant – petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.21883 of 2016.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition wherein, the Order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Navsari in Reference (LCN) No.1 of 2014 is upheld and it is held that the Labour Court did not commit any error by coming to the conclusion that the appellant could not be termed as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the “I.D. Act”).

4. The brief facts of the case are as under: -

4.1. The appellant was working as a Pujari in the Temple run and manged by the respondent No.1 – Trust with effect from 10.03.1999. The appellant was performing Pooja and Aarti at the Temple and was initially paid Rs.1200/- per month towards his remuneration.

4.2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No.1 –

Trust was managing Shri Saibaba Temple and was also selling ‘Bundi Ladu’, coconut etc. The respondent No.1 – Trust had employed 3 Pujaris, 1 Manager, 2 persons for taking donations, 6 staff members for general administration of various activities, 2 cooks and 20 workmen for preparing ‘Bundi Ladus’ and cleaning the Temple and other premises and accordingly, the respondent No.1 – Trust was carrying out its religious and commercial activities by employing about

35 to 40 workmen.

4.3. It is the case of the appellant that his service was terminated on 30.11.2012 by the respondent No.1 – Trust without any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation or without following any legal procedure and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The appellant, therefore, raised the industrial dispute by filing a complaint before the Conciliation Officer, Navsari on 09.10.2014, which was referred to the Labour Court, Navsari being Reference (LCN)

No.1 of 2014.

4.4. The appellant submitted his Statement of Claim praying to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages on the ground that the respondent No.1 – Trust is an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act as the respondent No.1 – Trust is carrying on commercial and business activity by selling ‘Bundi Ladus and coconuts’ and other Pooja articles and, therefore, there is a breach of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act.

4.5. The respondent No.1 – Trust submitted its written statement at Exh.8 on 20.11.2014 denying the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. However, it was admitted by the respondent No.1 that the appellant was working as Pujari since 1999 and by Resolution passed on 30.11.2012, his service was terminated.

4.6. The appellant, thereafter, submitted documentary evidence on record including the copies of money receipts issued by the respondent No.1 – Trust for sale o