LAWS(KAR)-2005-8-67

RADHAKRISHANA BHAKTA Vs. SUBRAMANYA SHASTRI

Decided On August 11, 2005
RADHAKRISHNA BHAKTA Appellant
V/S
SUBRAMANYA SHASTRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated March 3, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 45628/2001 whereby the case has been remitted back to the State Government to reconsider the issue.

(2.) THE appellant before us is Sri radhakrishna Bhakta Mandali Trust which is administering Radhakrishna temple at bangalore. Subramanya Shastry respondent no. 1 is the priest engaged in the temple who performs pooja for the devotees who visit the temple. It is alleged that on receipt of several complaints from the devotee the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated. He sought to raise an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings were held which did not fructify. The State Government exercising its powers under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the act') declined to refer the dispute for adjudication observing that the temple run by the trust is not an industry within the meaning of clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act and therefore the Act was not applicable. This order of the State Government came to be challenged by the respondent No. 1 who claims to be a workman. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the state Government while declining the reference could not have adjudicated the dispute. The order declining the reference has been set aside and the case remitted to the Government for redecision. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ appeal deserves to succeed. Having regard to the definition of 'industry' in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act we are of the view that any activity which could be described as an industry has to be either trade or business or any other activity analogus thereto. A temple which is visited by the devotees by reason of faith cannot by any process of reasoning be said to be an activity analogous to trade or business. We are of the view that the State Government was right in declining the reference. While doing so it relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a kesava Bhatt v. Sree Ram Ambatam Trust, 1990-1- LLJ-192 wherein Archak or a priest in a temple was held not to be a "workman" within the meaning of the Act as he cannot be said to be doing any manual or clerical services to the devotees of the temple. The temple was held not to be an industry within the meaning of clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. We have carefully gone through this judgment and are in agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge.