Temple Pujari Not a ‘Workman’ Under Industrial Disputes Act; Main Work Assigned Decides Status: Rajasthan High Court

The appellant was appointed on 1 April 2002, temporarily for three months on a fixed salary of Rs. 2,500 a month, as ‘Pujari’ to perform sewa puja in Girdhar Gopal Temple (para 10). His services ended from 31 July 2005. Claiming 240 days of service, he said the termination without compliance with Section 25F was void (para 3). The respondent said a contractor supplied his services, that a pujari is not a workman and that a temple is not an industry (para 4). The Labour Court, Udaipur rejected the claim on both counts on 17 October 2019 (paras 2, 5), and a Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on 17 December 2019 (paras 1, 7).

The appointment order was to the post of ‘Pujari’, not ‘Watchman-cum-Pujari’, and the specified duties of a pujari did not include a watchman's duties. That the appellant and other pujaris were directed to stay in the temple premises at night did not show that he did a watchman's work (para 10). The Bench noted the Delhi High Court's view in Sai Bhakta Samaj, relied upon by the Labour Court, that a workman under Section 2(s) does manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, whereas puja applies knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans and aartis and is not such work (para 11); Laxmi Narayan Shastri followed that view (para 12). Designation is not conclusive; the test is the main work assigned, and manual work ancillary or incidental to it does not bring an employee within Section 2(s) (para 13). As the appellant was assigned sewa puja, the Labour Court's finding was not capricious or perverse so as to warrant writ interference. Even assuming the employer, not solely engaged in maintaining the temple, was an ‘industry’ under Section 2(j), the Act was not attracted because the appellant was not a workman, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction (para 14).