JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath , J.—Short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this appeal is: Whether a retired clerk in a temple is entitled to claim benefit of gratuity on attaining the age of superannuation under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972? R-3 was an employee of the appellant-temple. There are two temples known as Venkataramana Temple and Hale Mariyamma Temple situated at Kapu in Udupi Taluk managed by Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin community. R-3 having served the temple as a Manager for several years, tendered resignation on 4.9.1994. Resignation of R-3 was accepted by the appellant. Later he raised (sic) dispute before the Labour Court and during the pendency of the case he filed an application claiming gratuity. Asst. Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directed the appellant to pay the gratuity-payable to R-3. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed an appeal before R-1 which appeal came to be rejected, challenging the concurrent findings writ petition was filed which was also ended in dismissal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, present appeal is filed. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant that a Hindu Temple cannot be considered as an establishment in order to grant gratuity payable under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to them, it is a place of worship and it is neither a commercial nor non-commercial establishment as no trade or business is done by the appellant. Therefore, he contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not holding that the definition of temple does not come under the purview of establishment, therefore he requests the Court to dismiss the claim of R-3 by allowing the appeal. But we are unable to accept the arguments of the Counsel appearing for the appellant because the question in this appeal is no more res integra in view of the Division 'Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in the matter of Administrator Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri v. Jagannath Padhi and others, 1992 (65) FLR 946. wherein their Lordships have ruled that whole temple would come under the purview of the establishment, therefore it was held that the clerk or a manager who was working in a temple is entitled for payment of gratuity. In view of the same, we do not see any merits in this appeal. 2. wherein their Lordships have ruled that whole temple would come under the purview of the establishment, therefore it was held that the clerk or a manager who was working in a temple is entitled for payment of gratuity. In view of the same, we do not see any merits in this appeal. 2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.