The Madras High Court recently highlighted the low salary being paid to the temple staff in some temples of the State.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan noted that the salary drawn by some of the temple staff was lower than the lowest national floor level minimum wage of Rs 176 per day.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court reach injustice wherever it is found and redress the situation. Our conscience is shocked that thousands of temple staff are paid atrociously poor pay. The amount paid to them would be hardly sufficient to keep the body and soul together. We may remark that the lowest National Floor Level Minimum Wage is Rs.176/- per day,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan, seeking directions to the State Government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to pay the salaries to Archakas and all other temple employees throughout the State of Tamil Nadu as per the Minimum Wages Act, and on par with other government servants.
The bench noted that temples are an inseparable part of our culture and social life and most of the temples in Tamil Nadu were under the governance of the HR and CE Department.
The court noted that temple staff in the state came under two categories – indoor and outdoor, and the temple staff are paid out of the income generated by the particular temple. The court added that this leads to an invidious situation as temples which are bereft of properties are not able to generate sufficient income and the staff is paid a pittance. The court also noted that in some temples, the cook was paid as low as Rs 400 monthly.
The court commented that when a person provides labour or service for a remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, it would come within the scope of “forced labour” under Article 23 of the Constitution and such person would be entitled to come to court for enforcement of his fundamental right.
“Article 43 of the Constitution of India talks of payment of living wage. In a different context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him falls within the scope and ambit of the words “forced labour” under Article 23. Such a person would be entitled to come to the court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 by asking the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the labour or service provided by him ceases to be “forced labour” and the breach of Article 23 is remedied,” the court noted.
The court added that linking a person's pay to the temple's income would breach his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court also noted that it could not lay down a straightjacket formula and the matter had to be dealt with on a case to case basis, depending on the work carried out by the staff.
The court observed that previously, another division bench of the High Court had initiated suo motu action and directed that the salary and other service and retirement benefits to all staff of the temple should be fixed as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.
The court noted that despite passing of such order 3 years ago, the state had not taken steps to enforce the same. Thus, the court deemed it fit to reiterate the directions.
The court also added that the HR & CE department could not plead lack of resources and there were various ways to raise funds. The court observed that the department had a paramount duty to ensure proper wage and it was unfortunate that till date, they had not bothered to lift their little fingers to ameliorate the pitiable condition of temple staff.
“We expect the HR&CE Commissioner to take immediate steps in this regard. It is he who must bell the cat. When binding judicial direction is there to ensure payment of fair wage to the temple staff, the Department and its officials cannot be permitted to keep quiet,” the court said.
The court also suggested that motivated devotees could form groups and each group could be in charge of a particular temple. The court added that the groups should be tasked with ensuring that the staff is paid a decent salary.
The court gave an example of Zoho owner, Sridhar Vembu, and said that such persons could be associated and called upon to come out with appropriate revenue models.
The court thus closed the plea by directing the HR & CE department to ensure that a living wage is paid to each staff working in public temples coming under its purview.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Sivasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader