Pujari Does Not Qualify As 'Workman', Temple Trust Not Industry Under Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a temple priest/pujari would not qualify as 'workman' under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act as a pujari in a Temple does not do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The court further held that a trust managing a temple cannot be considered as an Industry under the act merely because the...
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a temple priest/pujari would not qualify as 'workman' under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act as a pujari in a Temple does not do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work.
The court further held that a trust managing a temple cannot be considered as an Industry under the act merely because the devotees who gather at the temple for worship are provided ladus made in the temple.
The court was hearing an appeal by the pujari (priest) of a temple challenging a single judge's order upholding the decision of labour court which came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be termed as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The appellant was working as a Pujari in the Temple run and managed by the respondent Trust with effect from 10.03.1999. The appellant was performing Pooja and Aarti at the Temple and was initially paid Rs.1200 per month towards his remuneration. It was his case that the Trust was managing Shri Saibaba Temple and was also selling 'Bundi Ladu', coconut etc.
He claimed that the Trust had employed 3 Pujaris, 1 Manager, 2 persons for taking donations, 6 staff members for general administration of various activities, 2 cooks and 20 workmen for preparing 'Bundi Ladus' and cleaning the Temple and other premises and so the Trust was carrying out its religious and commercial activities by employing about 35 to 40 workmen.
The appellant contended that his service was terminated on 30.11.2012 by the Trust without any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation or without following any legal procedure and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He raised an industrial dispute by filing a complaint before the Conciliation Officer on 09.10.2014, which was referred to the Labour Court.
In his Statement of Claim he sought reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service and full back wages on the ground that the Trust is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act as it is carrying on commercial and business activity by selling 'Bundi Ladus and coconuts' and other Pooja articles.
A division bench of Justice Bhargav D Karia and Justice LS Pirzada said that as per Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 'Industry' means business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
The bench referred to Supreme Court's order dated 29.01.2026 in Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada vs. Laxmi Narayan Dev Trust which had upheld the high court's decision and held that temple trust does not qualify as an “industry”.
The bench said that in Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada the Apex Court has only considered the aspect of compensation payable to the employee while confirming that the Temple is not an 'Industry'.
The bench also referred to Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam vs. Commissioner of Labour (1979) where it had held that Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam as a body cannot be considered to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act or within the meaning of Trade. Unions Act.
The bench further referred to Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and others (1978) where it was held that one must look at the predominant character of the institution and the nature of the relations resulting in the production of goods and services and stray wage-earning employees do not shape the soul of an institution into an industry.
The bench thus said:
"In view of the facts of the present case, when the respondent No.1 – Trust is managing Shri Saibaba Temple where, the devotees gathered together for prayers and worship and they are provided with Ladus manufactured in the Temple then, it cannot be said that merely because they are few servants employed by the respondent No.1 – Trust including Pujari for a main and substantive nature of the activity is the prayers and worship only and, therefore, it is not possible to designate the respondent No.1 – Trust as an 'Industry', notwithstanding a marginal few who are employed on regular basis for hire as the crucial, substantial and substantive aspects of the institutional life of the respondent No.1 – Trust is the nature of the relations between the participants is non-industrial...Therefore, the respondent No.1 – Trust cannot be considered as an 'Industry' within the definition of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court, therefore, could not have assumed the jurisdiction under the provisions of the I.D. Act to adjudicate the Reference made by the competent Government under Section 10 of the I.D. Act".
The bench thereafter said Single Judge had referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and Others wherein it was held that the Medical Representatives would not fall in the definition of 'Workman' as they are neither skilled workers nor are technical or operational workers.
"Similarly, in the facts of the case, the work carried out by the Pujari of worshiping and doing Puja in the Temple can neither be considered as a skilled, technical nor operational to fall within the definition of 'Workman'...In view of the above dictum of law and analysis carried out, it is apparent that the appellant being a Pujari, looking after the Temple, would not fall within the scope of the 'Workman' as per Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act because, a Pujari in a Temple does not do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work but, he only applies his knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans and aarties and recites the same in the Temple and merely helping the other Temple activities incidentally, cannot be considered to be work specified in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act," the bench added.
The Trust submitted its written statement before the labour court denying the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. However, it was admitted by the Trust that the appellant was working as Pujari since 1999 and by Resolution passed on 30.11.2012, his service was terminated.
The Labour Court after considering the submissions made by both the sides, passed an order dated 03.09.2016 on the preliminary issue by rejecting the Reference holding that the appellant was not covered within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence labour Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the reference.
The appeal was dismissed.
Case title: UMESHWAR AKSHAYWAR DUBEY v/s SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEVA MANDAL TRUST & ANR
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2319 of 2017