JAGBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of fact and law arise in all of them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as daily waged workers on behalf of the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh, District Hamipur (hereinafter called 'the Trust') and all of them with the exception of a few, had completed 240 days in a year before their disengagement orally, without giving any notice or compensation. The case set up by the petitioners is that their disengagement is retrenchment as defined under clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') but conditions precedent to it i. e. notice of one month and payment of compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Act have not been followed, hence it is bad in law. As such, the petitioners have prayed for their reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE Trust is included in the Schedule to the Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act of 1984) and accordingly various provisions of the Act are applicable to it. It is an ancient temple having a large following. Lacs of devotees and pilgrims visit the Temple every year, particularly at the time of 'navratras' when Mela is also held. As per the Trust, it is not an industry as it is involved in religious and spiritual activities and the offerings of the Temple are used for development of temple and providing facilities for Pooja in the Temple as well as facilities for the stay of the devotees and no profit is made out of these activities. In the alternative the case of the Trust is that reference under Section 10 of the Act is an equally alternative efficacious and speedy remedy available to the petitioners, hence the writ petitions are not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. According to the Trust the writ petitions are not maintainable for another reason also that it is neither State nor Authority as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution. However, on merits the Trust has justified the disengagement of the petitioners on the ground that there is no work available with it and they will be reengaged as and when the work is available.

(3.) FROM these pleadings the following points arise for determination: -