GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN SHEGAON Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Petitioner, Shri Gajanan Maharaj sansthan, Shegaon, District Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as the Sansthan for the sake of brevity), challenges the award passed by the labour Court in Reference No. 1 of 1983. The said reference was occasioned on account of an industrial dispute between the petitioner Sansthan and its employees. The employees, who then were 200 in number, had submitted a Charter of Demands and demanded that their pay-scales should be fixed and that they should be also given the pay as per their categories. There were number of other demands put up by the employees. The petitioner/sansthan did not agree with these demands and, therefore, a reference came to be made by the Conciliation Officer. The said reference was answered against the petitioner/sansthan firstly holding it as an industry and, secondly, fixing the pay-scales of all the employees, by categorising them. It is this award which is the subject matter of the challenge in the present petition.

(2.) SHRI A. R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/sansthan has restricted himself only to the question as to whether the petitioner/sansthan can be called an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the petitioner is a registered Public Trust under the bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and carries only religious and charitable activities at Shegaon. According to him, it is because of the advent of a great Saint Shri Gajanan Maharaj, in the year 1878 and on account of his divine powers that a temple came to be established where the Samadhi of the great Saint is situated. It is this Samadhi which, ultimately, was transformed into a huge temple with hundreds of devotees coming to this temple every day. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in order to see that the devotees are not put to inconvenience, the Public Trust, which has come into existence, gives various services to these devotees like distribution of food, the facility to stay at Shegaon at cheap rates by making accommodation available to them. It is pointed out that other activities are also undertaken like running a free dispensary as also providing free transportation facilities to the devotees. The learned Counsel goes on to submit that since all these are religious activities, they cannot be called to be the commercial activities and, indeed, it cannot be held that they are the activities run with the idea of earning any profits. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the said Public Trust/sansthan cannot be held to be an industry.

(3.) SHRI A. V. Bhide, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/workmen, on the other hand, points out that there is a systematic activity going on at the instance of the Sansthan. He further points out that even if a cheap accommodation is made available and even if the food is made available in extremely competitive rates by the Sansthan, the said Sansthan earns the profits of lacs of rupees per year, which would be clear from the accounts and balance-sheets. According to Shri Bhide, the temple earns thousands of rupees on account of the offerings and a huge staff is engaged by the Sansthan to keep the temple clean and to look after the comforts of the pilgrims and the devotees who come to Shegaon. According to Shri Bhide, all this involves a systematic activity and, therefore, this would amount to an industry. Shri Bhide further relies upon a reported decision of this court in Shri Cutchi Vias Oswal Derawasi Jain mahajan vs. B. D. Borude, I. T. Maharashtra, 1987 (1) LLJ 81, where a temple has been held as an industry by Pendse, J. (as he then was ). According to Shri Bhide, merely because the activities of the Sansthan are not profit-oriented, it cannot be said that the said Sansthan is not an industry. The learned Counsel heavily relies upon the solitary case of Bangalore Water Supply and sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548.