TIRUCHENDUR ARULMIGU SUBRAMANIASAMY KOVIL OIVUPETRA PANIYALARGAL SANGAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU SUBRAMANIASAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, to the retired employees of the respondent.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner Sangam would submit that at the time of retirement, the employees of said Sangam are paid only the provident fund but not pension; that the petitioner Sangam submitted an application on , 17/10/1998 to the Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer of the respondent Devasthanam for payment of gratuity, to the retired temple employees, which was rejected stating that as per the present rules and regulations of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the retired employees of the temple are not entitled to the payment of gratuity; that the annual income of the temple would be Rs. 4 crores i approximately by way of collecting donations, leasing out shops, collecting rent from the pilgrims, who stay in the rooms belonging to the Devasthanam, selling entrance tickets, etc. : and that the petitioner Sangam falls under the ' category of outdoor servants.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that the Devasthanam comes under the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act and it has to be treated as an industry as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so far as its commercial activities are concerned and hence Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the respondent Devasthanam; that the subject matter of the writ petition is pending before this Court in W.P. No. 6316 of 1992, wherein an employee who was doing outdoor work, viz., drawing kolam in the Sankaranarayanaswamy Temple in Sankarankoil, claimed gratuity on her retirement which was refused by the temple authorities and that she filed a claim petition before the Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Tirunelveli in P. G. 3/89 and her claim was upheld on 7/08/1991 and thereafter the Devasthanam preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner for Labour in P.G.A. 1/92 and the same was dismissed on 26/03/1992, as against which, the Devasthanam has filed a writ petition, which is pending before this Court.