ADMINISTRATOR SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE Vs. JAGANNATH PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question relating to applicability of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short the 'act') to the employees of Shri Jagannath Temple (in short the 'temple') forms subject-matter of dispute in this application.

(2.) THERE is practically no factual controversy. Opposite Party No. 1 (described hereinafter as the 'claimant') was an employee of the famous temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri and retired on superannuation with effect from April 31, 1983. On an application being made by him, the authorities under the Act held that the Temple was liable to pay gratuity to the claimant. They did not accept the contention raised that the Temple was not an "establishment" to come within the ambit of Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act. A reference was made to the definition of "establishment" within the meaning of the terms as given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1956 for negativing the contention.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner-Temple before us that the Temple occupies a unique place and is primarily a spiritual institution. It is submitted that the Temple is a body corporate incororated under Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 and is not a trust as held by the authorities and even otherwise the said Act provides for payment of gratuity to its employees and the claimant had been paid his entitlements under such Act and regulations framed thereunder, disentitling him from making further claim for the benefit of gratutity under the Act. The term "establishment" has not been defined in the statute. Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act makes it clear that it applies to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months. As observed by the Supreme Court in (1981-I-LLJ-354) State of Punjab v. The Labour Court, Jullundur; (1990) 32 OJD 42 (Sandl): Executive Officer, Cuttack Municipality, Cuttack v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Labour Commissioner, Orissa (to which one of us, Pasayat, J. was a party) and O. J. C. Nos. 1129 to 1131 of 1985: The Executive Officer, Puri Municipality v. Rama Naik etc. etc. , disposed of on November 30, 1990 (to which my Lord the Chief Justice was a party), the Act is not restricted to only commercial establishments, but to establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to establishments in a State. The question that falls for determination, therefore, is whether the term "establishment" as defined in any law operating in the State includes within its ambit a "temple". The authorities under the Act have observed that the Industrial Disputes Act and the statue relating to shops and commercial establishments include "temple Trust" and therefore, the Temple is included therein. It would be relevant at this stage to refer to a decision of this Court reported in 1980 (49) CLT 252, Gopichand Agarwala v. State of Orissa, wherein the question whether deity is an establishment or an undertaking under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act came up for consideration and it was held that deity is neither an establishment nor an undertaking within the meaning of that Act. It was observed that the word "establishment" was not defined in the concerned statute and therefore to be assigend the commonsense meaning; it is difficult to conceive that a religious institution like a Hindu temple can constitute an establishment in the sense the words have been used in Section 2 (e) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972.