ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar Gandhimathi Amman Temple, Tirunelveli Taluk, challenging the order of the Labour Court in C.P.No.05/2012 dated 07.09.2012.

2.The fourth respondent in the writ petition was engaged as Madappalli Worker in the Temple and the nature of work assigned to him was to prepare temple Prasatham and other products. The fourth respondent approached the Labour Court alleging that he was not paid salary in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 04.09.1998. It was contended by the petitioner that the fourth respondent did not make any request to him for arrears or enhancement of salary and the fourth respondent approached the Labour Court, without raising any issue. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the temple does not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that therefore, the petition filed by the fourth respondent before the Labour Court is not maintainable against the petitioner. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,445/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% with effect from 02.01.2012. Aggrieved over the same, the above writ petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition before the Labour Court on the ground that the second respondent, who is an employee of the Temple vested with HR&CE cannot be brought under the definition of worker under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel did not make any submission with regard to any other irregularities in the order of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the preliminary objection raised as regards the maintainability of the petition filed before the Labour Court.

4.The issue whether employees of Temple are entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act is particularly with reference to the Temples administered by HR&CE, has been considered in several decided cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of E.GOPAL -vs- ARULMIGU DHANDAYUTHAPANI SWAMY TEMPLE, PALANI AND OTHERS, reported in 2013(3) CTC 689, wherein it is held that the Temple/Religious Institution would normally fall within the definition of “establishment” and that the employees working in religious institution are entitled to avail benefits of Gratuity Act. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether a Religious Institution/Temple will come within the purview of Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab -vs- Labour Court, Jullundur, 1981(1) LLJ 354.

5.The Full Bench of this Court, considering the specific plea that was raised by the petitioner in the present case, held as follows:

“16. Before going through the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, it would be profitable to note the order of the learned single Judge, which gave rise to the aforesaid Division Bench decision.

The matter related to payment of gratuity to the retired employees of the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Devasthanam, Tiruchendur, under the Payment of the Gratuity Act. The main contention of the employees before the learned single Judge was that at the time of retirement, the employees are paid only the provident fund but not pension and the Devasthanam comes under the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act and as per Section 2-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Devasthanam has to be treated as an industry. The stand of the Management was that the employees are entitled to provident fund and not either pension or gratuity and that the management does not come under the category of 'industry' nor fall under the ambit of Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

In the absence of furnishing of already decided cases toward their stand point by either of the counsel, the Court proceeded to pass orders on the facts p