E.GOPAL Vs. ARULMIGU DHANDAYUTHAPANISWAMY TEMPLE,PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Division Bench has raised some doubt regarding the applicability of the ratio of a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 2626 of 2002, dated 2.9.2008 (Tiruchendur Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Kovil Oivupetra Paniyalargal Sangam v. Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Devasthanam, Tiruchendur) in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur, 1981 1 LLJ 354), which was followed by the earlier Division Bench in , (Management of the SIET Women s College v. Mohamed Ibrahim,1992 WritLR 155) and referred the matter to a Larger Bench by observing as follows:-

(2.) Before considering the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules 1964.

(3.) By placing reliance on the aforesaid statutory provisions of law, Mr. S. Silambanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 3825 of 2004 would mainly contend that "Religious Institution" or "Temple" will come under the purview of "establishment" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.