GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANATHAN Vs. GAJANAN KARAMCHARI SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against an order made by the High Court affirming an award made by the industrial tribunal in a reference made to it under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of demands put forth by respondent no. 1- union on behalf of certain employees who are mentioned in the schedule to the reference. The principal demand is in regard to fixation of higher classified basic pay scales with fitment of the employees therein and for certain allowances as well.

(2.) The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the reference made and contended that the appellant is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts act carrying on religious and charitable activities at Shegaon; that one Gajanan maharaj, it is claimed, had supernatural and divine powers and he attracted a large number of people from Vidarbha area and even from outside; that with the passage of time, the devotees increased in number; that when the said Gajanan Maharaj left this mortal world, he was cremated and on that place a samadhi was erected and the devotees of the said Gajanan Maharaj periodically visited the said place and liberally contributed into the collection box kept at that place; that taking into consideration the large number of devotees visiting the temple, the management of the temple made provision for accommodation, food, medical aid at nominal cost and above all performance of worship of the deity; that all the inmates of the sansthan and devotees are fed, accommodated and looked after by the appellant which service is rendered on voluntary basis, selflessly to acquire spiritual grace of the Maharaj; that substantial number of participants make available their services on voluntary basis without any wages though there are a few who are employed on regular basis for wages. The predominant character of the appellant and the nature of relations resulting in services do not indicate the same to be industry. This stand of the appellant is seriously challenged by the 1st respondent union.

(3.) The tribunal did not analyse either the pleadings or the evidence adduced except to narrate the various contentions raised by the parties in passing the award. The high Court, though adverted to the various contentions raised before it and the evidence adduced before the industrial tribunal, lost sight of the observation made by this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa and Ors. [ (1978) 2 SCC 213] to the following effect: