F.M.A. 71 of 2004. Case: Sri Nathji Bhandar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | F.M.A. 71 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Arunabha Ghosh, Nilandu Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kr. Dutta, Advs. And For Respondents: Amal Baran Chatterjee, Sk. Nizamuddin and Abdul Hadi, Advs. And For State: Asish Kr. Das, Adv. |
| Judges | Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, JJ. |
| Issue | Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 - Section 2; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2; Nathdwara Temple Rules, 1963 |
| Judgement Date | April 07, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
-
The famous temple of Lord Srinathji is at Nathdwara in the State of Rajasthan. There is also another temple of Lord Srinathji at Kolkata. The Nathdwara Temple Board, constituted under the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, runs the administration of Srinathji Temple at Nathdwara. Sriathji Temple at Kolkata is managed by Srinathji Bhandar, namely, the Appellant No. 1 herein. The workmen represented by Srinathji Bhandar Employees' Union raised a demand for enhancement of the salary and ultimately, the dispute raised by the said Union was referred by the Government of West Bengal to the 8th Industrial Tribunal by the Order of Reference dated 24th May, 2000 for adjudication of the following issues:
-
Whether the demand for increase in salary of the workmen is justified.
-
What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled to?
-
The learned Judge of the Tribunal adjudicated the aforesaid issues and passed an award on 7th August, 2002 upon holding that the demand for increase in salary of the workmen represented by the Srinathji Bhandar Employees' Union is justified and directed the management of Srinathji Bhandar Calcutta to pay increment to the workmen represented by the said Union @ 10% per annum of their salary with effect from January 1995.
-
The relevant extracts from the aforesaid award passed by the learned 8th Industrial Tribunal are set out hereunder:
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material on records, I hold that payment for increase in salary to the workmen of Sri Nathji Bhandar, Calcutta is justified. The company, i.e. management of Sri Nathji Bhandar, Calcutta is hereby directed to pay increment to the workmen of the Temple @ 10% per annum of their salary with effect from January, 1995.
This is my award on contest. The instant reference is thus disposed of.
-
The Appellants herein challenged the validity and/or legality of the said award passed by the aforesaid Tribunal by filing a writ petition and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
-
The learned Single Judge, however, refused to interfere with the said award passed by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2003.
-
Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, instant appeal has been filed by the Appellants. It has been urged on behalf of the Appellants that the award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the erroneous findings of the learned Tribunal.
-
Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the Appellants submitted that the Respondent Union had no occasion to demand the increment of salary in respect of the workmen who were not appointed by the Appellant No. 1.
-
Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the Appellant No. 1 is not at all an industry and the persons represented by the Respondent No. 3 are performing the day to day Seva Puja of the deity Lord Srinathji without receiving any salary and therefore, those people cannot be treated as workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
-
The learned Counsel of the Appellants submitted that the Order of Reference issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal dated 24th May, 2000 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as there was no existence of any industrial dispute between the Appellant No. 1 and Srinathji Bhandar Employees' Union. Referring to the various findings and observations of the learned Tribunal and also of the learned Single Judge Mr. Ghosh submitted that the Appellant No. 1 herein never appointed the employees represented by the Respondent Union and, therefore, the Respondent Union had no occasion to raise an industrial dispute against the Appellant No. 1 which could be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
-
Mr. Ghosh categorically submitted that there being no employer-employee relationship between the Appellant No. 1 and the persons represented by the Respondent Union the impugned Order of Reference issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal and the subsequent award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained at all in the eye of law.
-
Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellant No. 1 herein, not being the appointing authority, cannot have any right, authority and/or jurisdiction to entertain the demand for increase in salary in respect of the persons represented by the Respondent Union.
-
The Respondent Union on the other hand submitted that the Appellant No. 1 herein is administered by the Nathdwara Temple Board, constituted under the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959. It has also been submitted on behalf of the Respondent Union that the Appellant No. 1 is a branch office of the said Board.
-
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, the learned Counsel representing the Respondent Union submitted that the writ petition filed by the Appellants herein are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial