Minimum Wages Act Does Not Apply To Temples & Mutts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Minimum Wages Act does not apply to temples or mutts.

In the context of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the court observed that there is a distinction between a temple and a mutt.

"A Math is an institution headed by a person whose primary job is to engage himself in teaching, propagation of religious philosophy etc., and impart religious training etc. On the other hand, a temple is a place, which is dedicated to and keep used as a place of public religious worship.", Justice DVSS Somayajulu observed while allowing a writ petition filed by Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt challenging the memos issued to it directing payment of minimum wages.

Before the court, it was contended that there is a fundamental distinction between a Math and a temple although both can be called a religious institution, and that in the case of the former the authorities under the 1987 Act, do not have the power or control to interfere in these affairs of a Math. The state defended the memos relying upon the principle of equal pay for equal work. The court said:

"In the opinion of this Court, a general power of superintendence given to the Commissioner does not extend to interfere in the secular activity and is limited in its scope. A reading of section 8 makes it clear that the superintendence and control includes the power to pass an order to ensure that institution is properly administered and the income is spent for the purpose for which they were found. The use of the conjunction "and‟ makes it clear that this power under section 8 (1) is to ensure that the funds are spent for the purposes for which they are intended only. Similarly, section 8(2) which starts with a non-obstante clause also talks of exercise of powers "conferred‟ on him or the functions „entitled‟ to him by the Act. No statutory provision has been pointed out by which this particular power to give directions to pay minimum wages etc., is shown to the Court. Lastly, this Court is of the opinion on this issue that if section 8(1) and section 49 of the Act are read together, the limited powers of the Commissioner become clear. They are limited to the fixing/spending/utilization of the "dittam‟ only. In case of disagreement, the matter has to be referred to a Court for decision (Section 49-Proviso). Similarly, the amendments to sections 51-53 etc., where the Commissioner has been substituted by the "Dharmika Parishad" also makes it clear that the role of the Commissioner is very limited."

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment [Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir vs Workman Compensation Commissioner] in which it set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that held that the payment of Minimum Wages or other welfare scheme for the Sevaks/workers in the employment of Temple or other religious and Charitable Establishments can be regulated by the State. "The Minimum Wages Act does not apply to all industries which are covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It applies only to certain 'sweated' industries mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. A temple is not one of them.", the Court had held. Taking note of this, the court observed:

"The provisions of the Act and interpretation placed on the same relying on the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Court lead to a conclusion that a Math, which is a separate institution rendering certain religious and other functions pertaining to a particular denomination is different from a temple which is open to all for worship. The Math has its own area of operation and the respondents cannot interfere in its secular activity. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to the Math. The judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, the definitions in the Minimum Wages Act, also support this conclusion. The autonomy given to a Math to maintain and administer its activities also supports the view that the respondents cannot interfere in every activity. If the respondents have such a power to interfere every activity it would run contrary to the constitutional and other guarantees given to the religious denominations to carry on their own activities."

The court also observed that the State cannot claim any power or authority to take over the management of the math by separating the religious functions and secular affairs of the math. "No doubt, in cases of misconduct or mismanagement of the properties by the mahanth, it is open to the State to initiate action under Section 51 of the Act which provides for removal of mathadhipathi. However, the said provision, under no circumstances, can be held to have conferred power on the State to continue a custodian to manage the secular affairs of the math indefinitely, in spite of the fact that the vacancy of a mathadhipathi has been filled up on permanent basis under Section 53 of the Act.", it added.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment