W.P.(MD).No.4432 of 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 23.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

W.P.(MD).No.4432 of 2014

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

The Executive Officer,

Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar

Gandhimathi Amman Temple

Tirunelveli Town,

Tirunelveli District-627 006

...Petitioner

.Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court,

District Court Complex,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli District.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,

Chennai-600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,

Tirunelveli-2.

4.Mr.S.Ramasami Iyyer

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the

records pertaining to the impugned order in C.P.No.05/2012 dated

07.09.2012 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as

illegal.

For Petitioner

:Mr.G.Karthick

For R2 to R4

:No appearance

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

1/9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD).No.4432 of 2014

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