Reciting Bhajans, Aartis Not ‘Work’ To Qualify Pujari As ‘Workman’; Few Servants Employed Don’t Make Temple Trust ‘Industry’: Gujarat High Court
A temple trust engaged predominantly in prayer and worship cannot be classified as an “industry” merely because it employs a few servants
The Gujarat High Court has held that a Pujari performing religious duties such as reciting bhajans, hymns and aartis in a temple cannot be treated as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court further noted that a temple trust engaged predominantly in prayer and worship cannot be classified as an “industry” merely because it employs a few servants or staff members, emphasising that the predominant character of the institution remains religious rather than industrial.
Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L. S. Pirzada delivered the judgment while dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a Pujari who had challenged the dismissal of his claim by the Labour Court and a Single Judge Bench.
The Division Bench observed, “…it is apparent that the appellant being a Pujari, looking after the Temple, would not fall within the scope of the ‘Workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act because, a Pujari in a Temple does not do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work but, he only applies his knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans and aarties and recites the same in the Temple and merely helping the other Temple activities incidentally, cannot be considered to be work specified in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act”.
“…when the respondent No.1 – Trust is managing Shri Saibaba Temple where, the devotees gathered together for prayers and worship and they are provided with Ladus manufactured in the Temple then, it cannot be said that merely because they are few servants employed by the respondent No.1 – Trust including Pujari for a main and substantive nature of the activity is the prayers and worship only and, therefore, it is not possible to designate the respondent No.1 – Trust as an ‘Industry’, notwithstanding a marginal few who are employed on regular basis for hire as the crucial, substantial and substantive aspects of the institutional life of the respondent No.1 – Trust is the nature of the relations between the participants is non-industrial. Therefore, as held, we must look at the predominant character of the institution and the nature of relations resulting in production of goods and services in absence of any material on record to demonstrate that the employees engaged on ordinary economic terms with condition of service as in other business institution and more particularly, when none of the activities is shown to have organisational comparability to other profit making institution”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate D.G. Shukla appeared for the appellant and Advocate A.K. Clerk appeared for the respondent.
The appellant had been working as a Pujari at a Sai Baba temple managed by a public trust since 1999 and was paid a monthly remuneration for performing pooja and aarti. His services were terminated on 30-11-2012 through a resolution passed by the trust.
Therefore, claiming that the termination was illegal and carried out without notice, compensation, or compliance with statutory requirements, he raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with back wages.
Now before the Labour Court, the Pujari argued that the trust should be treated as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it employed several staff members and carried out activities such as selling prasad items like laddus and coconuts. On that basis, he claimed protection as a “workman” under the Act.
However, the Labour Court rejected the reference after framing a preliminary issue and concluding that a Pujari does not fall within the statutory categories of manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Act. The decision was subsequently upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court.
While considering the appeal, the Division Bench examined two key questions:
-whether the temple trust could be considered an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act; and
-whether a Pujari performing religious functions could be regarded as a “workman” under Section 2(s).
The Court noted that the definition of “workman” under the Act is confined to persons engaged in manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. Since the duties of a Pujari primarily involve religious and spiritual functions, they do not fall within any of these categories.
The Bench also referred to earlier judicial precedents which have held that temples and religious institutions whose predominant purpose is spiritual or religious cannot ordinarily be treated as industries, even if they carry out incidental activities connected with the management of the institution.
Cause Title: Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v. Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:17531-DB]
Appearances:
Appellant: D.G. Shukla, Harsheel D Shukla, Advocates.
Respondents: A.K. Clerk, Advocates.