Jayaram v. Travancore Devaswom Board — 1999 DIGILAW 543 (KER)

Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. K. Shrihari Rao for the petitioner, Mr. P.O. Parameswara Panicker for the first respondent, Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair for the 3rd respondent, M/s. K.R. Kurup and K.P. Kailasanatha Pillay for Respondents 7 & 9, and Mr. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai for the 8th respondent. 2. The Original Petition was filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to free the temple and the 1st respondent from all trade union activities and politicisation of 1st respondent; further directing the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 3rd respondent to get back all unauthorised possession of the 1st respondent's building which is used by the 3rd respondent as its office; and a further mandamus directing the 1st and 4th respondents to conduct a thorough enquiry with regard to the. rude action of the 3rd respondent and its members created on 1.10.1996 at the premises of the 2nd respondent's office and submit a report before this Court. Other incidental reliefs are also prayed for. 3. The petitioner submits that he is a permanent resident of Vaikom and is actively associated with the Kerala Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi and a believer of God and temple worship. The Original Petition is filed in a representative capacity as a believer of God and temple worship and representing believers of God and temple worship of Kerala. According to the petitioner, the action of the 3rd respondent union badly affected the functioning of the Second respondent's office and that the appointment of politicians in the Board, formation of unions in the Board and temples and giving strike notices, etc. are totally illegal and against the law declared by this Court in various judgments of this Court and as a believer of God and temple worship the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief mentioned above. Petitioner also refers to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 dated 10.4.1992, placing strong reliance on paragraph 24 of the said judgment to say that union activity is not conducive in temples and their administration and that union activities and strikes are totally against temple atmosphere and in such circumstances, the formation of union and calling strikes etc. are illegal and unjustifiable. are illegal and unjustifiable. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent Union is having its office in a building owned by the first respondent and that they are occupying the building without any valid permit obtained from the first respondent, but, it is alleged that the first respondent has not taken any action against the unauthorised occupation or tried to get vacant possession of the building, which, according to the petitioner, is an indication that the first respondent itself is patronising trade union activities in temples and in the Board, which is totally against the judgment of this Court in O.P. 3821 of 1990. Petitioner has also placed strong reliance on the order of this Court in T.D.B. No. 31 of 1993 dated 24.9.1993 in which this the service in a temple is not like service in other branches of the State or any other organisation and proper conduct and good morale are required for a person to be appointed as an employee in the temple service. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court reported in Thirumullappally Devaswom v. Commissioner (1979 KLT 139) and Kesava Bhat v. Sree Ram Ambalam Trust (1989 (1) KLN 57). 4. Petitioner has also filed C.M.P. No. 22517 of 1999 to implead additional respondents 5 to 10 in the Original Petition, which was allowed by this Court on 14.6.1999. Respondents 5 to 10 are the Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Union, Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Federation, Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Association, Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Council, Travancore Devaswom Board Maramath Employees Association and Travancore Devaswom BoardEmployees Union. C.M.P. No. 37900 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the first respondent to get vacant possession of the rooms now in the possession of respondents 2 to 7, which is being used as their respective union office. 5. All the impleaded parties were directed to file a counter affidavit by order dated 5th October, 1999. Accordingly, respondents 1, 3,7,8 and 9 have filed their counter affidavits. The 3rd respondent has stated in its counter affidavit that the Dharma organised by it did not at all affect the functioning of the 2nd respondent's office and that the 3rd respondent union did not conduct Dharma in an unholy manner as alleged and no abusive language was used against the 2nd respondent or against anybody. The 3rd respondent has stated in its counter affidavit that the Dharma organised by it did not at all affect the functioning of the 2nd respondent's office and that the 3rd respondent union did not conduct Dharma in an unholy manner as alleged and no abusive language was used against the 2nd respondent or against anybody. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is a responsible organisation formed in 1989 and till date no form of agitation or even demonstration was organised in any of the temple premises, but, on the other hand, a number of organisations claiming to be protectors of worshipers and temples like the petitioner samithi have made use of the temple premises for shouting slogans in protest of politicians being appointed as members of the Devaswom Board, -etc. According to Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair, Counsel for the 3rd respondent, as an organisation of employees, the 3rd respondent has got every legal right of collective bargaining and demonstrations and peaceful agitations are part of the process of collective bargaining. According to him, those rights are well protected rights under Art.19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. It is stated further that the 3rd respondent had not done and will not do anything against the believers of God and temple worship and that the members of the 3rd respondent are also believers of God and temple worship. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that the 3rd respondent was allowed to occupy building No. 11/1559 belonging to the Board for accommodating its office by order dated 16.7.1991 of the Board and that the petitioner has no reason for objecting to this. It is stated further that it is in the better interest of the Devaswom Board as well as the employees as a whole that the Board gave such a permission. 6. The 7th and 9th respondents have tiled a common counter affidavit through the Secretary of the 7threspondentorganization. It s submitted that the employees working under the Devaswom Board falls within a number of categories and the problems faced by each of them being peculiar and different from the rest, in order to ventilate their grievances, availability of an organisation is necessary and a total ban on such an organisation can cause great hardships to the employees. It s submitted that the employees working under the Devaswom Board falls within a number of categories and the problems faced by each of them being peculiar and different from the rest, in order to ventilate their grievances, availability of an organisation is necessary and a total ban on such an organisation can cause great hardships to the employees. On this aspect the Union has relied on a passage in the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 to the effect that though politics should be kept off, in any form, there need not be a complete ban for forming associations or unions by members of the staff or persons working in various temples. It is submitted that the Devaswom Board employees can be classified into two categories, viz. employees associated with temple administration and termed as temple employees, and the category which perform the ministerial and establishment duties, termed as establishment staff. It is stated that the service conditions of the two categories are also totally different and the Board controls and regulates their services under different regulations and that respondents 7 and 9 have been working as an effective forum for effective consultaion and grievance redressal . It is further submitted that the 7th respondent organisation is functioning in a space provided by the Board and in response to a communication issued by the Board to vacate the space provided, the 7th respondent has requested to finalise the formulation of the rules and the recognition of the unions in accordance with the rules and also requested to keep in abeyance any action to vacate the premises, as it was impossible at that point of time to find out which association will be recognised in the light of the rules to be formulated. 7. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in C.M.P. No. 37900 of 1999. Mr. K.R. Kurup addressed the arguments on their behalf. He submitted that the said -union was formed in 1965 and it represents about 90% of the temple employees under the Travancore Devaswom Board except the ministerial staff and a portion of building No. TC 37/293 was handed over to the 7th respondent union by the Devaswom Board in 1967 as per a resolution of the Board, in order to establish a union office for the welfare of the employees of the Board. It was further submitted that in its 35 years of existence, no strike or demonstration of any kind was ever conducted by the 7th respondent union within the premises of any temple and no slogans were raised inside or near the vicinity of the temples, but demonstrations or other means or agitations were held only in front of the administrative offices of the Board or in front of the Government Secretariat, far away from the vicinity of the temples and there has never been any occasion when the daily rituals of any of the temples were not performed due to any agitations caused by the said union. While answering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners in regard to the observations in the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990, Mr. K.R. Kurup submitted that the Division Bench has not prohibited the formation of different unions for different categories of employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and that what is prohibited by the Division Bench is only the "direct action" associated with normal trade union activities like strikes, demonstrations, etc. within the temple premises or near their vicinity. It was further argued that the Division Bench has categorically held that since collective bargaining has come to stay, there need not be a complete ban for forming associations or unions by the members of the stiffer persons working in various temples and that the plurality of the Unions are in fact really contemplated in the said judgment. Counsel drew our attention to paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Division. Bench of this Court in the above Original Petition. 8. With regard to the recommendations of the High Power Commission and the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 dated 10.4.1992, Mr. Kurup submitted that the Devaswom Board decided to frame rules in exercise of the powers conferred under S.35(2)(e) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 regarding the service association in the Travancore Devaswom Board and the draft rules were published in the Gazette dated 6.7.1999 inviting objections to the proposed rules, though actually the Gazette was released to the public only on 27.7.1999. It is submitted that the Travancore Devaswom Employees Union (U.T.U.C.) (the 7th respondent) filed detailed objections on 16.8.1999 and the final rules are yet to be published. According to Mr. It is submitted that the Travancore Devaswom Employees Union (U.T.U.C.) (the 7th respondent) filed detailed objections on 16.8.1999 and the final rules are yet to be published. According to Mr. Kurup, only after the commencement of the Special Rules regarding Service Association, de recognition of the existing unions can take effect as provided under the Special Rules and the procedure for formulation of a single association representing the employees are also to be prescribed in the said Special Rules and only upon the formation of this association, the question of derecognition of the existing trade unions will arise. Hence, it is submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition is very premature and that the dictum and the directions laid down by the Division Bench in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 dated 10.4.1992 have also not been considered in the correct perspective while formulating the draft rules. He also submitted that the union reserve their right to challenge the rules as violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and also against the provisions of the Trade Unions Act at a later stage. According to Mr. Kurup, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and he has not shown as to how any of his rights are infringed by the functioning of the trade unions in the offices allotted to them by the Travancore Devaswom Board. 9. The eighth respondent Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Council has filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in the Original Petition. It is stated that the pleadings in the Original Petition are vague and that the petitioner had not given or pointed out any specific instance wherein the 8th respondent acted against the interest of the establishment or against the public. It is submitted that there are more than 400 ministerial staff of the Devaswom Board as members of the 8th respondent' union and that the ministerial staff are doing office jobs and therefore the union is not interfering with any activities of the temples and is espousing the cause of the employees. It is further submitted that the existence of the union is highly beneficial to the employees at large and the 8th respondent union, which is a registered trade union, is acting in the interest of the staff. It is further submitted that the existence of the union is highly beneficial to the employees at large and the 8th respondent union, which is a registered trade union, is acting in the interest of the staff. Counsel for the 8th respondent submitted that there is absolutely no justification in seeking a direction to curtail all the trade union activities and that to safeguard the interest of the employees of an organisation like the 8th respondent is imperative and that the union has succeeded in ventilating the grievances of a majority of its members and a total ban of the organisation will cause great difficulties and hardship to the employees. It is submitted further that since the union is mostly associated with ministerial and establishment duties and not with the temple administration, the petitioner cannot seek dissolution of the union and that the administration of temple should be distinguished from other activities. According to counsel, the establishment staff are working under different conditions and hence they are standing on a different footing. It is submitted that the union is functioning in a place provided by the Devaswom Board and that there exists no circumstance to direct them to vacate the said premises and the petitioner cannot have grievances against the union on this score also. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner has not made out any grounds in the Original Petition warranting interference from this Court with the trade union activities of the 8th respondent union. 10. The first respondent Devaswom Board filed a detailed counter affidavit along with Exts. RI(a) to Rl(f)- Mr. P.O. Parameswara Panicker, learned counsel for the Devaswom Board, invited our attention to all the exhibits and highlighted the importance of the exhibits with regard to the allegations in the Original Petition. Ext. 10. The first respondent Devaswom Board filed a detailed counter affidavit along with Exts. RI(a) to Rl(f)- Mr. P.O. Parameswara Panicker, learned counsel for the Devaswom Board, invited our attention to all the exhibits and highlighted the importance of the exhibits with regard to the allegations in the Original Petition. Ext. R1 (a) is the letter sent by the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to the General Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board Staff Federation, inviting their attention to the recommendations of the High Power Commission contained in Sub paragraph (XXVI) of paragraph 28 Chapter V and also the relevant findings of this Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 10th April, 1992 in O.P/3821 of 1990, to which the Travancore Devaswom Board was a party respondent and reminding them that they should not indulge in extremely risky exercises with the help of outsiders and spoil the atmosphere and that the organisation is bound by the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990. Ext. RI(b) is a circular issued by the Devaswom Board. Mr. Parameswara Panicker submitted that a copy of the circular was sent to all the individual employees of the Board with a direction to acknowledge receipt of the circular by affixing their signature either in the copy of the circular or by a separate acknowledgment letter. Ext. RI(c) is the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1993. Ext. RI(d) is a notification dated 18.5.1999 issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in exercise of the powers conferred under S.35(2)(e) of the Travacore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which contains an explanatory note also. Ext. RI(e) is copy of a letter addressed by the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to the General Secretary, Devaswom Employees Federation (C.I.T.U.), with regard to the implementation of the directions of the High Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 regarding service associations. It is stated that in view of the Division Bench judgment dated 10.4.1992 referred to above, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1993 by order dated 18.3.1999, it is the duty of the Board to implement the directions in the judgment. Ext. RI(f) is the notice dated 10.5.1999 sent by Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair, Advocate under instructions from Travancore Devaswom Employees Federation. 11. Ext. RI(f) is the notice dated 10.5.1999 sent by Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair, Advocate under instructions from Travancore Devaswom Employees Federation. 11. Referring to these exhibits and the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 and also the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 808 of 199 3 confirming the judgment in O.P.3821 of 1990, Mr. Parameswara Panicker argued that the Board has taken action to implement the direction of this Court regarding forming of one Association for all categories of employees, after the disposal of the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Board framed draft rules for the effective functioning of one service Association for all categories of employees. He submitted further that the Board has issued notice to each of the unions which has occupied premises belonging to the Board demanding immediate surrender of vacant possession of the premises. A copy of the notice issued to one of the Unions is produced as Ext. Rl(e). The third respondent Travancore Devaswom. Employees Federation, has sent a reply to the said notice stating that the entire recommendations of the High Power Commission was not accepted by the High Court. The learned counsel suggested the Devaswom Board that the following steps may be taken in order to implement the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990: 1. Board should frame rules for recognition of association/ unions. 2. Recognition must be granted to those associations/ unions which satisfy the conditions stipulated in the rules. 3. Politics should be kept off." It is stated in Ext. RI (f) that there is no objection in any outsider becoming leader of the association/ union and to say that politics should be kept off does not mean that politicians are to be kept off and that there is no prohibition in recognising more than one association/ union. Therefore, it is submitted that directing the Unions to vacate, the buildings occupied by them at this stage is unjust, premature and illegal. According to Mr. Parameswara Panicker, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable in the light of the specific recommendation of the High Power Commission and the judgment of this Court dated 10.4.1992 accepting the same and the order of the Supreme Court confirming the direction by this Court. According to Mr. Parameswara Panicker, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable in the light of the specific recommendation of the High Power Commission and the judgment of this Court dated 10.4.1992 accepting the same and the order of the Supreme Court confirming the direction by this Court. It is further submitted that the other unions also have taken the same stand and none of the unions have vacated the premises occupied by them. In the light of the report of the High-Power Commission, the judgment of this Court and the order of the Supreme Court, Mr. Panicker submitted that there can only be one association for all categories of employees and that no outsider can be office bearer of the association. He further submitted that the Board has revoked the licence under which the various unions of employees are occupying Board premises as their offices, since they have no right to continue in occupation of the premises and are bound to give vacant possession of the premises they are in occupation of to the Board, failing which the Board is entitled to take possession of the same. 12. Though notices were served on the other unions, they have not filed any counter affidavit. Since service of notice was complete and counter affidavits have also been filed by the contesting respondents, by consent of parties we heard the matter in detail. 13. It is not in dispute that the employees of the Devaswom Board have formed different associations/ unions from early days. The employees of the ministerial wing of the Board have formed four associations. The Presidents of the associations are leaders of one or the other of the political parties functioning in the State. They are outsiders and not employees of the Devaswom Board. The General Secretaries of the Unions are employees working on the ministerial wing of the Board. The membership of the associations is open to all categories of employees under the Board except temple employees like Santhis, Watchers, Kazhakom, Thali, etc., who have their own associations. The Presidents and Secretaries of such associations are also outsiders, being leaders of political parties. The employees of the Maramath wing of the Board have formed an association named Devaswom Board Maramath Employees Association. The President of the said association is a political leader and the Secretary i s an employee on the Maramath Wing of the Board. The Presidents and Secretaries of such associations are also outsiders, being leaders of political parties. The employees of the Maramath wing of the Board have formed an association named Devaswom Board Maramath Employees Association. The President of the said association is a political leader and the Secretary i s an employee on the Maramath Wing of the Board. According to the Devaswom Board, these associations were being allowed to use buildings/rooms belonging to the Board for user as their offices, even though the Board has not formally allotted any room or building for such purpose. The Board has also issued a general Circular, Ext. RI(b) inviting attention of its employees to the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 dated 10.4.1992 and the action proposed thereunder. 14. This Court had appointed a High Power Commission, consisting, of eminent persons with vast experience in administration and financial matters and known for their integrity and dedication to public interest, in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990, which was a public interest litigation relating to the administration of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board. The High Power Commission submitted its report dated 31.8.1990, which was considered by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of K.S. Paripoornan, J. (as he then was) and K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. It is useful to refer to the judgment. 15. The Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board were constituted under Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV of 1950). The statute vested jurisdiction in the High Court to appoint auditors to complete the audit and take action on the basis of Audit Reports -for the lapses or omissions noticed in the said reports. While considering the audit reports, innumerable irregularities, illegalities, misappropriation of funds, etc. came to light. In these circumstances, a Bench of this Court initiated suo mote proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, read with Ss.102 to 105 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religions Institutions Act, 1950 and appointed High Power Commission as mentioned suggest remedies to cure the various evils or diseases. This suo motu proceedings was subsequently numbered as O.P. No. 3821 of 1990. This suo motu proceedings was subsequently numbered as O.P. No. 3821 of 1990. The appointment of the High Power Commission was challenged by the Travancore Devaswom Board before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court by order dated 3.5.1990 held that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by this Court. The Commission appointed by this Court entered upon the task assigned to it and submitted two reports, the interim report on'Sabarimala' darted 13.5.1990 and the final report dated 31.8.1990. The question that fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was whether the reports submitted by the High Power Commission were acceptable in toto or impart. The High Power Commission made several recommendations. 16. Mr. V.N. AchuthaKump, who appeared for respondents 13 and 14 in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 submitted that the Travancore Devaswom Board has in its employ capable and competent persons and so no outsider need be appointed as stated in paragraph 38 sub-paragraph (xii) of the report of the High Power Commission. Similarly it was submitted that sub-paragraphs (xiii), (xiv) and (xvi) are detrimental to the interests of the employees of the Board and that no outsider should be imported. Other objections were also raised by counsel for respodents 13 and 14. The Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the various independent objections raised by counsel for respondents 13 and 14 are without substance, and held that the reorganisation and revamping of the administrative set up recommended by the High Power Commission is extremely necessary and in that perspective, the recommendations contained in sub-paragraphs (xii), (xiii), (xiv) and (xvi) were essential. The Bench was also of the view that a restructuring and revamping of the administration is in the excellence of the administration and it will only be conducive for better administration and will tone up the set up and yield better results. The Bench was also of the view that the recommendations contained in sub-paragraphs (xviii), (xxii), (xxiv), (xxvi) and (xxvii) would facilitate a better organisation and discipline for the administration as a whole and mere objection stating that they are not practical or feasible or that outsiders should not be imported, cannot be a defence as against the recommendations, based on a proper overall study of the entire structure and organisation. It is useful to refer to the other objections taken by Mr. K.R. Kurup, who appeared for the 27th respondent in that Original Petition with regard to sub-paragraph (x-xvi) dealing with framing of rules by the Board regarding service associations and the observations of the earlier Division Bench off this Court in that regard in paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 10th April, 1992, which reads thus: "The right to form association and ventilate grievances should be afforded; but it should be consistent with and such as will enable the main activity or purpose of the temple and temple worship to be purused without any sort of impediment or obstruction, either directly or even remotely. Consistent with the high standards required in temple atmosphere, it is only proper to keep off political or other influences. It will be ideal to have one Service Association only in each Board. We are of the view that the administration of the temple, temple worship and affairs connected with it, cannot be lightly regarded as a normal or common place activity, as stated by Mr. K.R. Kurup. We are of the view, that normal trade union activity is not conducive in temples and their administration. The administration of a temple is not like the serene atmosphere required in temple by normal trade union activity like concept of strike, etc. In a temple atmosphere calmness, serenity and discipline ordained by religious faith, should prevail. Any factor which erodes into those well cherished and accepted norms of faith, should be interdicted and cannot be countenanced. So we see nothing wrong in these commendations of the commission in sub-paragraph (xxvi) which will keep off political and other outside interests from the temple and its affairs. We cannot conceive of the administration of a temple, temple worship, etc., like other common place human activity and in this perspective, we are unable to accept the plea of respondent No. 27, that the recommendation in sub-paragraph (xxxi), a high-powered Kshethra Punarudharana Samithi is not necessary. It was his plea that such a technical body is not required. Similerly, the independent pleas, of counsel for the 28th respondent largely turned on sub-paragraph (xxvi). Mr. R.D. Shenoy argued that one Service Association may not be sufficient. There can be no objection in plurality of associations for mutual consultations. It was his plea that such a technical body is not required. Similerly, the independent pleas, of counsel for the 28th respondent largely turned on sub-paragraph (xxvi). Mr. R.D. Shenoy argued that one Service Association may not be sufficient. There can be no objection in plurality of associations for mutual consultations. Counsel submitted that trade union activity need not be tabooed as a whole, but such activity should be interdicted inside the temple and in and around temple premises. It can be done outside and away from the temple premises." The Bench held that the recommendation of the Commission contained in sub-paragraph (xxvi), regarding Service Association, is one ideally suited for a proper temple administration and that plurality of associations or organisations will only lead to more confusion and difficulties and is not in the larger interest of a serene atmosphere required for temples. 17. The then Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board Mr. Rajendran Nair submitted that the recommendations in sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (xxiv) contain aspersions on politicians and political parties and so unwarranted. Likewise, counsel for respondents 13 and HinO.P. No. 3821 of 1990 Mr. V.N. Achutha Kurup submitted that trade union activity as such may not be conducive to temple worship; but the employees should have a right to form responsible unions and able to carry on their agitations outside the temple and its premises. Counsel for the 27th respondent therein Mr. K.R. Kurup was in favour of trade union activity as is normally done and attacked the recommendations of the High Power Commission. Counsel for the 28th respondent in that Original Petition Mr. R.D. Shenoy submitted that trade union activity should be confined to outside the temple premises. There was also a general attack on the observations of the Commission that there should be depoliticisation of the Board and its working and that persons belonging to or having affiliation to political parties should not be nominated as members of the Board. The Bench held that it is after a detailed study of the entire working of the Boards and the functioning of the temples, that the High Power Commission made the recommendations regarding depoliticiation of the Boards, the qualification for nomination as members of the Boards and that politics and political flavour should be eschewed from the entire set up. The Bench held that it is after a detailed study of the entire working of the Boards and the functioning of the temples, that the High Power Commission made the recommendations regarding depoliticiation of the Boards, the qualification for nomination as members of the Boards and that politics and political flavour should be eschewed from the entire set up. It is useful to reproduce the observations of the Division Bench on this score contained in paragraph 25 of the judgment, which reads as follows: " We are of the view that considered in a larger perspective, the administration of a temple cannot be characterised as carrying on an industry. The temple administration and the activities therein should be viewed from a different angle or perspective. Religion is a matter of faith. That is not an area where every aspect can be explained as per the standards available in the material world. Normally, no question of trade union activity or political interference, directly or indirectly should be allowed to creep in. We would have normally upheld the entire recommendations of the High Power Commission contained in paragraph 38, sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (xxvi) without any limitation. But regard being had to the fact that collective bargaining has come to stay, we are inclined to hold that though politics should be kept off, in any form, there need not be a complete ban for forming associations or unions by the members of the staff or persons working in the various temples. Such associations or unions formed by the temple staff should be one recognised by the Boards. They will be for effective joint consultation, discussion and redressal of the grievances of the employees. Beyond that, the freedom to form association or union, cannot be envisaged in the matter of temple administration which cannot be equated with other human activity in society. In any view, we are of opinion that the "direct action", associated with normal trade union activity like strike, demonstration, etc., cannot at all be allowed either in the temples, or in their premises or even in the near vicinity. We make this position clear. With the above rider, we accept the recommendations of the Commission contained in paragraph 38, sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (xxvi)." 18. The Sub-Group Officers Association filed C.A. No. 808/1993 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in O.P. 3821 of 1990. We make this position clear. With the above rider, we accept the recommendations of the Commission contained in paragraph 38, sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (xxvi)." 18. The Sub-Group Officers Association filed C.A. No. 808/1993 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in O.P. 3821 of 1990. One of the challenge in the said appeal was against the direction given by this Court regarding formation of associations. The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 18.3.1999, copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. R1 (c) herein. The Supreme Court held thus: "The fourth grievance of the Subgroup Officers relates to item No. xxvi of the recommendation. That recommendation reads as follows: "The Boards should frame Rules regarding the Service Association that will be recognised by it for joint consultation and grievance redressal. There should be only one Service Association in each Board and all category-wise unions and unions with outsiders should be derecognised. The Rules should provide for effective consultation and grievances redressal Conduct Rules should be revised for all employees taking into account the special nature of duties of Board's employees." Learned counsel for the Subgroup Officers objects to the above recommendation that there is to be only one service association in each Board and the further recommendation that all category wise unions and unions should be deregularised. We are of the view that the Committee has taken into consideration all local conditions and made its recommendation. This recommendation is, in our view, in the best interest of the institution as well as the employees. The High Court has also accepted it and the same does not warrant any interference. Subject to the clarifications made above this appeal is disposed of. SdA New Delhi, March 18,1999. (a.p.misra) (M. JAGANNADHA Rao) Sd/ 19. It is submitted by Mr. Parameswara Panicker, counsel for the Devaswom Board that thereafter the Board has taken action to implement the direction of this Court regarding forming of one association for all categories of employees. Sub-paragraph (xxvi) of paragraph 38 of the report of the High Power Commission reads as follows: "xxvi. The Boards should frame rules regarding the Service Association that will be recognised by it for joint consultation and grievance redressal. Sub-paragraph (xxvi) of paragraph 38 of the report of the High Power Commission reads as follows: "xxvi. The Boards should frame rules regarding the Service Association that will be recognised by it for joint consultation and grievance redressal. There should be only one service Association in each Board and all category-wise unions and unions with outsiders and political leaders as office bearers should be de-recognised. The rules should provide for effective consultation and grievance redressal. Conduct rules should be revised for all employees taking into account the special nature of duties of Boards' employees." 20. This Court has accepted the recommedations of the High Power Commission vide paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment dated 10.4.1992. Ext. RI(d) notification dated 18.5.1999 was issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-s.(2)(e)of S.35 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV of 1950) and invited objections, if any, to the proposed rules, to reach the Secretary within 30 days of publication of the notification in the Kerala Gazette. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent that even though the Board has issued notices to each of the unions, there was no response or objections to the proposed rules. It is seen from the proceedings in C.M.P. No. 37150 of 1999 in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 dated 7th September, 1999 that no objection was received from any quarters within the time specified. A Division Bench comprising of AR. Lakshmanan, (Ag. C.J.) and S. Sankarasubban, (J.) passed the following order: "Heard counsel and perused the affidavit. 2. In compliance with the judgment dated 10.4.1992 in O.P. 3821-1990, the Board has made Rules regarding a single Service Association for all categories of employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is stated that the Rules were made in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (e) of sub-s.(2) of S.35 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Rules were published in Kerala Gazette dated 6.7.1999 under notification No. R.O.C. 4916/97/Est. I. The true conies been produced and marked as Exts. RI(a) and RI(b) respectively. No objection was received from any quarter within the time specified (thirty days' time). It appears, subsequently one objection dated 16.8.1999 was received from the General Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Employees Union, Thiruvanathapuram on 19.8.1999. I. The true conies been produced and marked as Exts. RI(a) and RI(b) respectively. No objection was received from any quarter within the time specified (thirty days' time). It appears, subsequently one objection dated 16.8.1999 was received from the General Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Employees Union, Thiruvanathapuram on 19.8.1999. The objection was rejected for the reason that it was received out of time. It was also stated that on merits also there was no substance in the objection raised by the said Union. 3. We have gone through the Rules. Since no objection has been received within the stipulated time, the Rules will have to be approved. We are told that the Rules have been sent to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, Thiruvananthapuram under cover of letter No: ROC 4916/97/Est. I dated 18.8.1999 for arranging publication in the Kerala Government Gazette. For the reasons stated above, we approve the Rules produced as Ext. Rl(b), The petition is ordered accordingly." 21. Mr. K.R. Kurup, learned counsel for the 7th respondent submitted that the Travancore Devaswom BoardEmployees Union (U.T.U.C.) filed detailed objections to the draft rules on 16.8.1999 and that in view of the fact thatthough the notification was published in the Gazette dated 6.7.1999, actually the gazette was released only on 27.7.1999, the objections filed by the 7th respondent on 16.8.1999 should be treated as objections to the draft rules filed within time. We are sorry that we are unable to countenance such a contention. In Ext. R1 (d) notification it was specifically stated that objections, if any, to the proposed rules should reach the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board within thirty days of the publication of the notification in the Kerala Gazette. The notification was published in the Gazette dated 6.7.1999 and since the 7th respondent filed their objections only on 16.8.1999, the same was rejected for the reason that it was out of time. It is submitted that the Rules were sent to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department on 18.8.1999 for arranging publication in the Government Gazette and that the rules were approved by this Court by the order in C.M.P. No. 37150 of 1999. It is submitted further that the rules have been published in Kerala Gazette No. 39 dated 5.10.1999 as Notification No. ROC. It is submitted further that the rules have been published in Kerala Gazette No. 39 dated 5.10.1999 as Notification No. ROC. 4916/97/Est.-1 dated 18th August, 1999, where it is stated that the rules shall come into force with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette. Hence, the rules have come into force as on 5.10.1999. Now that the rules have come into force, it is for the Devaswom Board to comply with the rules regarding service associations under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Rule 3, is very specific with regard to one service association for all the employees, which reads as follows: "3. One Service Association for all the employees. From the appointed day onwards it shall be lawful to have only one Association representing all the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Consequently, all the category wise Unions and Unions with outsiders and political leaders as office bearers shall stand derecognised." Rule 5 deals with recognition of the association which reads thus: "5. Recognition of the Association.- (a) Such association of the employees of the Board may apply for recognition, within three months after the appointed day, with copy of the Bye law of the Association and if there is only one application, the Board, after being satisfied that the constitution of the Association has complied with requirements of clause 4, may grant recognition to such Association. (b) If there are more applications than one satisfying the requirement of clause 4, the Board shall conduct a referendum among all the employees of the Board and that association which secures the maximum percentage of votes shall be granted recognition. (c) Subject to the right of the Board to derecognise the Association under clause 7, recognition granted on the basis of a referendum shall be valid for 5 years and in every five years fresh referendum shall be held, if necessary." As per R.5, the association of employees of the Board ha veto apply for recognition within three months after the appointed day, viz. 5.10.1999, with copy of the bye laws of the association and if there is only one application, the Board, after being satisfied' that the constitution of the Association has complied with requirements of clause4, has to grant recognition to such association. 5.10.1999, with copy of the bye laws of the association and if there is only one application, the Board, after being satisfied' that the constitution of the Association has complied with requirements of clause4, has to grant recognition to such association. If there are more than one application satisfying the requirements of clause 4, the Board has to conduct a referendum and the association which secures maximum percentage of votes will have to be recognised. As already noticed, the Travancore Devaswom Board has permitted various associations to be in occupation of rooms/buildings for the last several years for user as the office of the respective associations. Till the Board complies with the formalities as per the rules regarding service association as per Rr. 2, 3,4 and 5 we are of the opinion that it will not be proper for this Court to issue direction to the respective associations to vacate the premises under their occupation. Therefore, we direct the Travancore Devaswom Board that any action to evict the various associations of employees under the Board from the rooms/buildings occupied by them as their office shall be kept in abeyance till the formalities under the rules mentioned above are completed by the Board. Some of the Unions have also filed affidavits stating that they have not done and will not do anything against the believers of God and temple worship and that the members of the. unions are also believers of god and temple worship. We, therefore, feel that the request now made by the petitioner to issue a direction to the respective unions to vacate the premises occupied by them before completion of the formalities as per the rules with regard to the formation of one association for all employees under the Board is xemature. Now that the rules having come into force, the Devaswom Board shall In the light of the report submitted by the High Power Commission appointed by this Court and in the light of the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990, no trade union activity or political interference should be allowed to creep in and all category wise unions and unions with outsiders and political leaders as office bearers shall stand derecognised. The High Power Commission as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 have expressed the view that politic and political flavour should be eschewed from the entire set up. A Larger Bench of five judges of this Court headed by AR. Lakshmanan, J. in the decision reported in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala 1999 (3) KLT 575 =(1999(2) KLJ 724) while deciding an issue regarding nomination of members of the Managing Committee of Guruvayur Devaswom, held in paragraph 39 as follows: "39. Before parting with this case, we want to make it clear that it is very important function or duty that is assigned to the nominating persons, namely, the duty of constituting a committee for the efficient management and administration of Guruvayoor Temple. It is true that the Act prescribes that persons who are elected as members of the Managing Committee should be persons who have faith in Temple Worship and they have also to give a declaration to that effect. But, every man who believes in God and Temple Worship may not be a good or efficient administrator or may not be aware of the formalities of temple management. It is our earnest hope and desire that the persons nominated by the Hindu Ministers should be of high integrity and honesty and should discharge the functions of management and administer with care, sincerely and in the interests of the religious denomination and in public interest. With a view to avoid politics among the members of the Committee, it is desirable that no politician from any party should be nominated to the committee." In this case, the judgment rendered by this Court in O.P. No. 3821 of 1990 was affirmed by theSupremeCourtinC.A.808of 1993. The Devaswom Board shall strictly follow the directions in the judgment in O.P. 3821 of 1990 as affirmed by the Supreme Court in its letter and spirit. 22. The Devaswom Board shall strictly follow the directions in the judgment in O.P. 3821 of 1990 as affirmed by the Supreme Court in its letter and spirit. 22. In the result, the Original Petition is partly allowed and the Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to comply with the rules regarding formation of one union for all the employees under the Board and after recognising one union, they may derecognise all other unions and grant them 10 days time to vacate and surrender peaceful vacant possession of the premises occupied by them to the Devaswom Board, failing which, the Devaswom Board may seek police assistance for implementing their directions with regard to the vacation of premises in question. Upon request by the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities, the concerned Police authorities shall give adequate police protection and assistance to the Devaswom Board in implementing their directions with regard to vacation of premises occupied by the derecognised unions concerned. No costs.