Dismissed¶4

Surendra Babulal Dixit v. President / Secretary M/S. Vighnharta Ganesh Mandir Trust

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025WP/14901/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple 'Pujari' held not to be a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: petitioner had no letter of appointment, received no fixed salary and apparently survived on devotee donations; Labour Court Thane award (15 September 2023) answering Reference (IDA) No.106 of 2019 in the negative was left undisturbed and the writ petition was rejected. Keywords: Pujari, workman definition, Section 2(s) ID Act, temple trust employment, Labour Court Thane, industrial dispute reference, Bombay High Court writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Petitioner, the term 'Pujari' does not fall into the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ¶4

Surendra Babulal Dixit vs President / Secretary M/S. Vighnharta Ganesh Mandir Trust — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Megha 46_wp_14901_2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.14901 OF 2024

¶4

Surendra Babulal Dixit ...Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

President / Secretary, M/s. Vighnharta Ganesh Mandir Trust. ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. P.G. Hartalkar for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

Dated: 13 March 2025.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Petition challenges award dated 15 September 2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Thane, answering Reference (IDA) No.106 of 2019 in the negative.

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2025.03.17 14:41:42 +0530

¶13

I have heard Mr. Hartalkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award as well as the relevant records of the case filed alongwith the Petition.

¶14

It is Petitioner’s own case that he was working as Pujari with the Respondent-Trust. Petitioner could not produce any

¶15

Page No. 1 of 2 13 March 2025

¶16

Megha 46_wp_14901_2024.docx

¶17

letter of appointment, by which he was allegedly employed by the Trust. It has come in the evidence that Petitioner was not paid any fixed salary by the Trust and was apparently surviving on donations offered by the devotees in the temple.

¶18

Considering the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Petitioner, it is difficult to believe that the term ‘ Pujari’ falls into the definition of the term ‘workman’ defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ID Act) . I therefore, do not find any valid reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the Petitioner cannot be considered as a workman within the definition under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶19

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶20

Page No. 2 of 2

¶21

13 March 2025

Surendra Babulal Dixit v. President / Secretary M/S. Vighnharta Ganesh Mandir Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Babulal Dixit v. President / Secretary M/S. Vighnharta Ganesh Mandir Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited vs Max-Link

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited vs Authentic Insurance Brokers India Limited

Monali Prabhakar Ahirrao vs Iifl Securities Limited

Techno Drillers and Anr. vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Jagtik Marathi Natyadharmi Nirmata Sangh vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited