Temple Trust Not An 'Industry' As Per Industrial Disputes Act : Supreme Court

Holding that a temple trust does not qualify as an “industry”, the Supreme Court recently upheld the termination of an accountant employed by the trust, despite the absence of a formal inquiry and after more than twelve years of service. “the respondent-Trust is a temple and as such, it would not fall within the four corners of the expression “industry”.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale. However, acknowledging the uninterrupted and continuous service rendered by the Appellant and he was terminated without holding any inquiry, followed by a transfer to a far-off location, the Court directed the Respondent-trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs). The appellant was appointed as an Accountant in 1977 in Laxminarayan Dev Trust and had worked continuously for 12 years when his services were allegedly orally terminated on November 1, 1999, without any domestic inquiry. His representations seeking reinstatement went unanswered, following which he approached the Labour Conciliation Officer.During conciliation, the Trust issued a communication asking him to report to a transferred post at Vadtal, failing which termination proceedings would follow. The dispute eventually culminated in a labour reference. By an award dated December 3, 2009, the Labour Court rejected the reference, holding that the respondent Trust, being a temple and charitable institution, did not fall within the definition of an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It found that the Trust neither carried on manufacturing activity nor operated as a profit-making institution. This finding was affirmed by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, and later by a Division Bench, which dismissed the intra-court appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the Court dismissed the appeal, observing that the respondent was essentially a temple trust, which could not be brought within the “four corners” of the definition of industry under the Act. However, taking into account the appellant's 12 years of uninterrupted and blemish-free service, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by awarding lump-sum monetary compensation. “we are of the considered view that the entire issue can be laid to rest by directing the respondent-Trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) since the appellant had worked for twelve years in the said Trust continuously, uninterruptedly and without any blemish.”, the court held. “Hence, without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this appeal by directing the respondent-Trust to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) in all and in full and final settlement of all claims, inclusive of interest within four weeks failing which, the said amount would carry interest @9% per annum and we also make it clear that said amount would be recoverable from the respondent by the appellant by filing an execution petition or an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court.”, the court ordered. Cause Title: INDRAVADAN N. ADHVARYU PIPALA FALI MODHVADA VERSUS LAXMINARAYAN DEV TRUSTCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 102Click here to download orderAppearance: For Appellant(s) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR Mr. P. Veerappan, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Farukpasha Bashumiya, Adv. Mr. Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Akumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. M.J. Riaz Ahamed, Adv. Mrs. Muskan, Adv. Mrs. Bachita Baruah, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Monika Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Satyendar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Bhushan Mahendra Oza, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR Mr. Supantha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Navneet Jha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.

Temple Trust Not An 'Industry' As Per Industrial Disputes Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags