Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 336 (KER)

Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty v. State of Kerala

2004-07-23

J.M.JAMES, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2004
Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Government has got the power to refer a dispute between an employee and a temple governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under S.10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Trustee of Pandamangalam Devaswom questioning the legality of the Government Order dated 20.12.2003 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Fifth respondent was working as a Vazhipadu Clerk in the Pandamangalam Sreekrishna Temple. He was suspended by the Devaswom by its order dated 25.4.2002 pending enquiry into the allegations of misbehaviour and financial misappropriation. Fifth respondent submitted his reply which was found unsatisfactory and charge sheet was served on him. The explanation given by the 5th respondent to this charge sheet was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry was ordered to the charges levelled against him. Enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry and found the 5th respondent guilty of charges framed against him. A copy of the report was sent to the 5th respondent and his explanations were called for. A show cause notice was served on him to show cause why he shall not be dismissed from service. 3. The fifth respondent however, on 20.1.2003 submitted a petition before the 4th respondent Labour Officer, Malappuram complaining about the order of dismissal. Labour Officer on 25.1.2003 directed the 5th respondent and the petitioner to appear before him for conciliation on 26.3.2003. The files relating to the disciplinary action were also called for. Petitioner's representative was asked to reinstate the 5th respondent, but the same was refused. Petitioner pointed out to the 4th respondent that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute which falls under the H.R. & C.E. Act. Fourth respondent did not return the files and referred the matter to the Government. Government in exercise of the powers conferred under S.10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the matter vide its order dated 20.12.2003 to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad for adjudication. Dispute was numbered as I.D. No.7/04 and summons was issued to the petitioner directing her to appear before the Tribunal on 12.2.2004. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the above mentioned proceedings and has approached this Court. Dispute was numbered as I.D. No.7/04 and summons was issued to the petitioner directing her to appear before the Tribunal on 12.2.2004. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the above mentioned proceedings and has approached this Court. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Second respondent maintained the stand that only the Commissioner appointed under the H.R. & C.E. Act has got power to resolve the dispute and not the Industrial Tribunal. Further it is also stated that second respondent has already addressed the Government requesting to reconsider the order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal. 5. We are of the view the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the employee of a temple and Devaswom governed by the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The appointment and conditions of service of the employees are as provided under the rules framed under S.100(2)(y) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. S.49 of the Act provides for taking disciplinary action against the employees for good and sufficient reasons. Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner have also got powers under S.49(2) and (3) of the Act to deal with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of a temple coming under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. , Act. When Special Provision are provided under the H.R. & C.E. Act to take disciplinary action against an employee of a temple, and the remedy has also been provided thereunder, the Government have no jurisdiction or power to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Further, Industrial Tribunal has also no jurisdiction to resolve those disputes when the power is conferred on the Commissioner under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The temple managed by the petitioner Trustee would not fall within the definition of S.20) of Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute between the temple employee and the temple management is not an industrial dispute which falls under the definition of S .2(k) of the Act. The activities carried on in a temple i s purely of a religious nature. The temple has to function in an atmosphere different from that of an industrial and commercial undertakings. The dispute, if any, between the temple employee and the temple management has therefore to be resolved by the authority constituted under special enactment, H.R.& C.E. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The temple has to function in an atmosphere different from that of an industrial and commercial undertakings. The dispute, if any, between the temple employee and the temple management has therefore to be resolved by the authority constituted under special enactment, H.R.& C.E. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Industrial Tribunal has therefore no jurisdiction to resolve the disputes between the temple employee and the temple management. 6. Under such circumstance we are inclined to set aside Exts.Pl and P2 orders holding that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the temple authorities. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Exts.Pl and P2 would stand quashed. There will be a direction to the District Labour Officer and 6th respondent to forthwith return the files and the documents back to the petitioner.