Temple Pujari Not a ‘Workman’

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News?

A division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada of the Gujarat High Court, in Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v. Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. (2026) dismissed an appeal filed by a temple pujari whose services were terminated in 2012, holding that he did not qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the respondent Trust managing Shri Saibaba Temple could not be treated as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act. The court upheld the Labour Court's rejection of the reference for want of jurisdiction.

What was the Background of Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v. Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant had been working as a Pujari at the Shri Saibaba Temple run by the respondent Trust since 10.03.1999, performing Pooja and Aarti and receiving an initial remuneration of ₹1,200 per month. 
• The Trust also employed a manager, donation collectors, general administrative staff, cooks, and workers for preparing Bundi Laddus and cleaning the premises — totalling approximately 35 to 40 persons, according to the appellant. 
• The appellant's services were terminated on 30.11.2012 by a Trust resolution, without notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, or adherence to principles of natural justice. 
• He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 09.10.2014, which was referred to the Labour Court. He sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, contending that the Trust was an 'industry' since it engaged in commercial activity by selling Bundi Laddus, coconuts, and other pooja articles. 
• The Labour Court rejected the reference on 03.09.2016, holding that the appellant was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. A single judge upheld this finding, prompting the present appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On whether the Trust qualifies as an 'Industry': 

• The court referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 29.01.2026 in Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v. Laxmi Narayan Dev Trust, which confirmed that a temple trust does not qualify as an "industry," and noted that the Apex Court in that case had only addressed the aspect of compensation while affirming this position. 
• The court also relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour (1979), which held that the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam cannot be considered an industry under Section 2(j) of the Act or under the Trade Unions Act. 
• Applying the Supreme Court's test from Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) — that one must examine the predominant character of the institution and that stray wage-earning employees do not transform an institution into an industry — the court concluded that the primary and substantive activity of the Trust was religious worship, and the incidental preparation and distribution of laddus to devotees could not alter this character. 

On whether the Pujari qualifies as a 'Workman': 

• The court held that the work of a Pujari — applying knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans, and aartis — falls outside every category enumerated in Section 2(s), namely manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. Incidentally assisting other temple activities did not bring the role within the statutory definition.

What is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 

Industrial Dispute: 

• Industrial disputes are conflicts that arise between employers and employees, often due to differences in interests, opinions, or perceived violations of rights.  
• These disputes can have far-reaching implications for both the parties involved and the overall functioning of the economy.  
• Industrial disputes can result in legal actions, such as lawsuits and court orders. 
  • This can lead to additional costs and complexities for all parties involved.  
• These disputes are governed under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and are adjudged by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. 
• Section 2(k) of the Act defines Industrial Dispute.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 

• The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enacted on 11th March 1947, serves to address industrial disputes and related matters. 
• It encompasses the entire territory of India and applies to all industries, unless exempted by the government.

Workman:

• Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a "workman" is any person employed in an industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, including dismissed or retrenched employees. It excludes those in managerial/administrative roles or specialized services like the armed forces.