MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER TIRUNELVELI Vs. C PERACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the common issues raised in both the writ petitions and also in view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondents are one and the same, they have been taken up together for disposal and a common order is passed.

(2.) THE first respondent was appointed as night Watchman to an Endowment by name Pillaiyankattalai, on 20.10.1993. THE Endowment has been created for the purpose of doing religious performance. THE said Endowment also involves in collection of rent from the building constructed by it as well as the sale of Paddy in the public auction.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that Section 2(c) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act clearly defines an "Establishment". Until and unless the petitioner comes within the exclusion of the categories of the undertakings mentioned therein, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned counsel further submitted that the definition of "Industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act is very exhaustive and inasmuch a factual finding has been given by the respondents 2 and 3 that there is an activity of service involved, coupled with the further fact that there is a cooperation between the employer and the workmen, resulting in distribution of goods, with a view to satisfy the human wants, the writ petitions will have to be dismissed. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that except in a case where the action of the first respondent by itself involves a spiritual or religious activity, it cannot be said that the provisions of the said two enactments have no application. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions has already been considered by the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa [(1978) (1) LLJ 349]. Hence, the learned counsel for the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.