The Pujari of a Temple is not a ‘Workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act: RajasthanHigh Court
The Pujari would not be considered as a “Workman” within the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further opined that the opinion stated by the Labour Court “cannot be said to be capricious or perverse” was held in the matter of Pushkarlal versus Administrative Officer [D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 171/2020] by Justice Rameshwar Vyas and Justice Sangeet Lodha. The facts related to this case is: appellant was employed as Chowkidar /Pujari on a fixed salary of Rs.2500/- per month. However, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 31.07.2005 without assigning any reasons. It was contended by the appellant that he has completed 240 days of service (in a calendar year) and therefore, termination of his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was invalid and void. The claim was contested by the respondent by filing a counter-petition, taking the stand that the appellant’s services for the work of Pujari were made available to the respondent by the contractor M/s. R.S.D. Enterprises, Udaipur. The appellant was working under the control of the contractor and the salary was also being paid to him by the contractor. A preliminary objection was raised that the contractor who employed the appellant is a necessary party. That apart, it was contended that the appellant was employed as Pujari in the temple and since the Pujari didn’t fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and the temple also didn’t fall within the definition of ‘industry’, the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Court while examining the definition of a ‘workman’ observed that “It is true that the designation of an employee is not conclusive to bring him within the definition of ‘workman’ set out in Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 but then, for a determination as to whether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not, the test is what is the main work assigned to him. If he does some manual work as ancillary or incidental to the main work assigned to him, cannot have an effect of such employee being covered by the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947.”  It was further expounded by Hon’ble Court adverting to the facts of the present case, as discussed above, the appellant was appointed as Pujari and not Watchman- cum-Pujari as claimed and he was assigned duties of performing Sewa puja in Girdhar Gopal Temple. As discussed above, the appellant being provided accommodation within the temple premises and permitted to stay in the premises in the night, in no manner, leads to the conclusion that he was appointed as Chowkidar and was assigned the duties of the said post. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the appellant being employed as Pujari was not covered by the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Further, even if it was assumed that the respondent, employer of the appellant, is not solely engaged in maintaining the temple falls within the definition of ‘industry’ given in Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, the appellant being not a workman, the provisions of Act of 1947 were not attracted in the matter and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred by the appropriate government. Finally, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Click here to read the judgement
 on 16 09 2020 at 07:00:35 PM HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPURD.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 171 2020Pushkarlal S o Bhanwar Lal Shrimali Aged About 46 Years Badganv Post Dhol Tehsil Gogunda District Udaipur. AppellantVersusAdministrative Officer Maharana Pratap Smarak Udaipur MotiMagri Udaipur RespondentFor Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumit SinghalHON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYASOrder15 th September 2020Per Hon’ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha J.Reportable1.This intra court appeal is directed against order dated17.12.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant aggrieved bythe award dated 17.10.19 passed by the Labour Court Udaipur has been dismissed.2.The facts relevant are that vide notification dated 27.12.07issued by the Department of Labour Government of Rajasthan the dispute raised by the appellant was referred for adjudication tothe Labour Court Udaipur in the following terms:“D k izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS \ fn gka] rks D k Jfed Jhiq"dj Jhekyh iq= Jh Hkaojyky Jhekyh fuoklh cMxkao] rglhy xksxqUnk]gky eqdke 42 deZ’khy ekxZ] pkaniksy ckgj] fljksgh okMk] mn iqj }kjkJh lqHkk"k Jhekyh] egklfpo] y kq m|ksx dkexkj wfu u] mn iqj dksfu kstd iz’kklfud vf kdkjh] egkjk.kk izrki Lekjd lfefr] eksrh exjh] LatestLaws.com on 16 09 2020 at 07:00:35 PM ) rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf kdkjh gS \”3.The appellant filed his statement of claim before the LabourCourt stating that he entered the employment of the respondentherein on 1.4.02 as Chowkidar Pujari on fixed salary Rs.2500 per month. However his services were brought to an end w.e.f.31.7.05 without assigning any reason. Precisely the case set outby the appellant was that he had completed 240 days of service ina calendar year and therefore termination of his services withoutcomplying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial DisputesAct 1947is invalid and void.4.The claim was contested by the respondent by filing acounter thereto taking the stand that appellant’s services for thework of Pujari was made available to the respondent by thecontractor M s. R.S.D. Enterprises Udaipur. The appellant wasworking under the control of the contractor and the salary wasalso being paid to him by the contractor. A preliminary objectionwas raised that the contractor who employed the appellant is anecessary party. That apart it was contended that the appellantwas employed as Pujari in the temple and since the Pujari doesnot fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and the temple does notfall within the definition of ‘industry’ the provisions of the Act of1947 are not applicable.5.After due consideration of the evidence on record the LabourCourt arrived at the conclusion that the temple does not fall withinthe definition of ‘industry’ and the appellant being employed asPujari does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ andconsequently rejected his claim by the impugned award. LatestLaws.com on 16 09 2020 at 07:00:35 PM ) [SAW 171 2020]Labour Court and the learned Single Judge in correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at.9.We have considered the submissions of the learned counseland perused the material on record.10.Indisputably the appellant entered the employment of therespondent on being appointed vide order dated 1.4.02a bare perusal whereof makes it abundantly clear that theappointment was accorded to the appellant on temporary basis fora period of three months on the fixed salary Rs.2500 per monthon the post of ‘Pujari’ and not on the post of ‘Watchman cum Pujari’ as claimed by the appellant. Moreover it was specificallymentioned that the appellant will perform ‘sewa puja’ in GirdharGopal Temple and shall stay in the temple premises. As perAnnexure 5theduties to be performed by the Pujari have been specified whichalso does not include the duties of Watchman as claimed. Merelybecause the appellant and other pujaris were directed to stay inthe temple premises in the night no inference can be drawn thatthe appellant was made to discharge the duties of Watchman. Thelearned Single Judge has rightly held that the directions to theappellant to stay in the temple premises by way ofaccommodation cannot make the status of the appellant differentfrom that of Pujari.11.In Sai Bhakta Samaj’s caserelied upon by theLabour Court the Delhi High Court categorically held that in orderto be covered under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 a workman issupposed to be one who does any manual unskilled skilled technical operational clerical or supervisory work whereas pujaby Pujari is an application of his knowledge of religious hymens LatestLaws.com on 16 09 2020 at 07:00:35 PM ) of the Act of 1947 andaccordingly held that Pujari is not a workman.12. The decision in Sai Bhakta Samaj’s casehas beenfurther followed by the Delhi High Court in Laxmi Narayan Shastrivs. Shri Santan Dharm Sabha Laxmi Narayan Temple Trust: WP(C)No. 3426 11 decided on 20.5.11.13.It is true that the designation of an employee is notconclusive to bring him within the definition of ‘workman’ set outin Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 but then for determination as towhether an employee falls within the definition of ‘workman’ ornot the test is what is the main work assigned to him. If he doessome manual work as ancillary or incidental to the main workassigned to him cannot have an effect of such employee beingcovered by definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section2(s) of the Act of 1947.14.Adverting to the facts of the present case as discussedabove the appellant was appointed as Pujari and not Watchman cum Pujari as claimed and he was assigned duties of performingsewa puja in Girdhar Gopal Temple. As discussed above theappellant being provided accommodation within the templepremises and permitted to stay in the premises in the night in nomanner leads to conclusion that he was appointed as Chowkidarand was assigned the duties of the said post. In this view of thematter in our considered opinion the finding arrived at by theLabour Court that the appellant being employed as Pujari was notcovered by definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section2(s) of the Act of 1947 cannot be said to be capricious or perverse LatestLaws.com on 16 09 2020 at 07:00:35 PM Powered by TCPDF[SAW 171 2020]so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writjurisdiction. Further even if it is assumed that the respondent employer of the appellant being not solely engaged in themaintaining the temple falls within the definition of ‘industry’ givenin Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947 the appellant being not aworkman the provisions of Act of 1947 are not attracted in thematter and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate thedispute referred by the appropriate government.15.For the aforementioned reasons we are in agreement withthe view taken by the learned Single Judge.16.No case for interference by us in intra court appealjurisdiction is made out.17.The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine.(RAMESHWAR VYAS) J(SANGEET LODHA) JAditya 