Dr. Aabir Bhattacharya and Divyanshi Shukla
Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its recent judgment has laid down that provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 do not apply to a religious Math. The Court held that the power of the Commissioner does not extend to interfering with the secular activities of the Math. While the Court took notice of the distinction between a Math and a Temple, it nevertheless held that the Math is not covered under the Minimum Wages Act. The Court further held that the state cannot claim the authority to manage a Math except for the cases of misconduct or mismanagement of the properties of the Math. This Article aims to briefly outline and analyse the decision.
Facts of the Case
The case arises from a writ petition filed by the Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was aggrieved by a notification issued by the Respondent (The State of Andhra Pradesh), wherein the petitioner was directed by the State to pay minimum wages to the persons employed in the Math. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus holding the impugned notification as inapplicable, void, and further restraining the respondent permanently from implementing such a direction. There was another writ petition filed, wherein the petitioner claimed that he had discharging the duties of a permanent employee of the Math but was not receiving the benefits of the same. This was contented to be in violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner sought the opposite relief, i.e., issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the respondent be directed to pay minimum wages along with all arrears.
The Judgment
The Andhra Pradesh High Court provided relief to the first petitioner, holding that the impugned notifications are inapplicable, and directed that the same may not be enforced against the petitioner. The Court, upon a combined reading of Section 8(1) and 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 specified the powers of a commissioner to be only limited to the fixing, spending and utilization of the ‘dittam’, and in any matter of disagreement between the Math and the State, for the matter to be referred to the Court for a decision. The Court held that while a temple is open for all, the Math has its own area of operation, and the Respondent may not interfere in its secular activity. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir v. Workman Compensation Comissioner[1] wherein it was held that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 extends only to certain “sweated” industries and not to Temples or other religious and charitable establishments. The Court further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble high Court of A.P. in the case of H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant, Disciple of Guru Devender Dass, Sri Swamy Hatiramji Math, Tirumala, Tirupati v. Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment Department, Hyderabad,[2]that the mathadhipathi or mahant has the duty and the power to maintain the property and both these powers are interconnected and cannot be detached from each other. The Mahant is entrusted with the management and administration of the Math or the specific endowment, and the State may not encroach upon the same by separating the religious and secular affairs of the Math. This autonomy given to the Math supports the view that the respondent’s interference with the secular activities of the math would run contrary to constitutional guarantees given to religious denominations to carry on their own activities. In view of the above, the other contesting writ petition was dismissed and no relief was granted.
Conclusion
This judgement therefore clarified the autonomy of Math in its management and administration by outlining the powers and limitations of the commissioner and the Mahant in managing a Math. Most importantly, the Court held that the Minimum Wages Act 1948 is inapplicable to a religious Math, depriving the employees of the Math from the protections provided by the Act while at the same time upholding the vision of the Constitution with regards to ensuring that religious denominations have the freedom to manage their own affairs without the interference of the State.
[1] Manu/UP/0049/2012
[2] 2006 (3) ALD 22
Leave a Reply