# S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir v. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 968
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5324 of 1997
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-s-n-tulsi-manas-mandir-v-workman-compensation-commissioner-and-others-40715
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Shukla
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri S.C. Rai
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri A.C. Agrawal
Sri Ashok Nigam
Sri Adish Agrawal
Sri Sanjay Goswami
Sri S.K. Maurya
Sri Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri P. Padia
C.S.C.

Minimum
Wages
Act,
1948,
U.P.
Minimum Wages Act (U.P. Amendment)
Act 1960, U.P. Minimum Wages Rules
1952-readwith Constitution of India Act14, 21, 38 (2) and 43-Right to get
minimum wages-persons working in a
religions
on
charitable
institutionengaged at the pleasure of Managementcannot be denied their rights of living a
life of human dignity-State Government
directed to frame scheme-regulation
providing protection to such working of
such religions and charitable institutions.

Held: Para 36
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
969
Article 21 of the Const of India is
applicable equally to all such persons,
The right to get livelihood, wages to
maintain themselves and their families
as discussed above, and to get fair
wages cannot be denied merely on the
ground
that
the
establishment
or
Institution is a religious or charitable
institution or that persons who are
engaged are Sevadars or employees at
the pleasure of management. Employees
or Sevadars are the persons who have
dedicated themselves to the service of
Deity and Almighty and in such way,
merely on that ground for cannot be
denied their right of living wages to
maintain themselves or their families
and to live a life with human dignity,
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC-2178, AIR 1986 SC-847, AIR
1980 SC-1789, AIR 1985 SC-389, AIR 1951
SC-2260, AIR 1983 SC-130, AIR 1981 SC-745,
1992 (4) SCC-465, AIR 1984 SC-802, AIR 1986
SC-180, AIR 1992 SC-504, 1987 ALJ-728, AIR
1954 SC-282, AIR 1961 SC-1402, 1992 LABIC1621, AIR 1963 SC-2089

## Text

_Characters 0–39,953 of 56,257. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39953 for what follows._

968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
obviously if one witness who was in the
process of cross examination is not
present on account of his illness such
prayer for adjournment should have been
allowed, subject to award of costs. On the
very next day i.e. 31.3.2005 this witness
was presented before the trial court but
his cross examination was not permitted
and the second impugned order was
passed on the petitioners' application
given under Section 151 C.P.C. In view of
the
availability
of
an
exceptional
circumstance, which was beyond control
of the other plaintiff to produce P.W. 1
(the other plaintiff) in the witness box on
30.3.2005,
the
prayer
seeking
adjournment made by the petitioners
should have been granted. Of course, if
the court finds in the face of it, the
reasons of illness given to be false it does
have a right to reject such prayer but here
what appears to have actually clicked to
the court for refusing the adjournment is
nothing but the provision contained in the
proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17 C.P.C. and
that does not appear to be a just and
proper approach and interpretation of the
court to that provision.

5. In view of the aforesaid, this writ
petition is hereby disposed of with a
direction to the trial court to permit cross
examination of P.W. 1 Ram Raj on the
very next date when the suit is listed for
hearing and thereafter to further proceed
to dispose of the case in accordance with
law.

 Petition disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5324 of 1997

Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir,
Durga Kund, Varanasi
...Petitioner
Versus
Workmen Compensation Commissioner/
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948/ Additional Labour Commissioner,
Varanasi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.B. Saxena
Sri M.B. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Shukla
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri S.C. Rai
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri A.C. Agrawal
Sri Ashok Nigam
Sri Adish Agrawal
Sri Sanjay Goswami
Sri S.K. Maurya
Sri Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri P. Padia
C.S.C.

Minimum
Wages
Act,
1948,
U.P.
Minimum Wages Act (U.P. Amendment)
Act 1960, U.P. Minimum Wages Rules
1952-readwith Constitution of India Act14, 21, 38 (2) and 43-Right to get
minimum wages-persons working in a
religions
on
charitable
institutionengaged at the pleasure of Managementcannot be denied their rights of living a
life of human dignity-State Government
directed to frame scheme-regulation
providing protection to such working of
such religions and charitable institutions.

Held: Para 36
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
969
Article 21 of the Const of India is
applicable equally to all such persons,
The right to get livelihood, wages to
maintain themselves and their families
as discussed above, and to get fair
wages cannot be denied merely on the
ground
that
the
establishment
or
Institution is a religious or charitable
institution or that persons who are
engaged are Sevadars or employees at
the pleasure of management. Employees
or Sevadars are the persons who have
dedicated themselves to the service of
Deity and Almighty and in such way,
merely on that ground for cannot be
denied their right of living wages to
maintain themselves or their families
and to live a life with human dignity,
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC-2178, AIR 1986 SC-847, AIR
1980 SC-1789, AIR 1985 SC-389, AIR 1951
SC-2260, AIR 1983 SC-130, AIR 1981 SC-745,
1992 (4) SCC-465, AIR 1984 SC-802, AIR 1986
SC-180, AIR 1992 SC-504, 1987 ALJ-728, AIR
1954 SC-282, AIR 1961 SC-1402, 1992 LABIC1621, AIR 1963 SC-2089

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. The proceedings under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of the
notice dated 8.8.1995 and 21,11.1995
(Annexures- 1 and 2 to the writ petition).
The notice dated 8.8.1995 were also
mentioned in the said notice. On the basis
of this notice M. W. Case No. 237/95 (Sri
R. P. Srivastava, Labour Enforcement
Officer, Varanasi Vs. Shree Satya Naraln
Tulsi Manas Mandir) was registered
before the respondent no.1 under the
Minimum Wages act and the respondent
no. 1 issued notice to the petitioner fixing
28.11.1995 and directing the petitioner to
appear along with all documents and
witnesses in support of his case. Notice
(Annexure 1) to the writ petition makes It
clear that all 29 workers In Shree Satya
Narain TulSI Manas Mandir Durga Kund
Varanasi are getting fixed amount of
Rs.450/- to 650/- per month except
persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 17 and
18, who are being paid a fixed amount of
Rs.1050/- per month.

2. After receiving the notice the
petitioner
filed
objection/written
statement (Annexure-4 to the petition)
raising the question of jurisdiction and the
applicability of the provisions for the
Minimum Wages Act.

3. In the written statement filed by
the petitioner, it is stated that Shree Satya
Naraln Tulsi Manas Mandir is a temple of
Sanatam Dharm Sect and is a holy place
where devotees come for darshan and
pujan for their Adhyatmik Santushthi by
Murti Puja. No Prasad is sold in the
temple and It IS purely a religious shrine
of
Hindus
and
not
a
commercial
establishment. It was further stated that
the temple is neither an Industry within
the meaning of U. P. Industrial Disputes
Act
nor
a
shop
or
commercial
establishment within the meaning of U.P.
Shop and Commercial Establishment Act
and It is a religious and spiritual place
which has no room for any sort of
business, trade or manufacturing. Various
other fats were also brought through this
objection/written statement.-

4. Subsequently the petitioner
moved an application stating that since
the petitioner temple is not a commercial
establishment and the notification issued
to fix minimum wages for commercial
establishment is not applicable to it nor it
being
a scheduled employment the
provisions of Minimum Wages Act are
not applicable at all to the petitioner
Temple and as such the question whether
provisions of Minimum Wages Act are
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
applicable to the petitioner Temple be
decided as a preliminary issue.

5. The respondent no. 1 by the
impugned order dated 4.2.1992 turned
down the objection of the petitioner while
observing that all the issues need be
decided together while delivering final
verdict.

6. Heard Sri Mool Behari Saxena,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel
appearing for Opposite party no.3, Dr.
Ashok Nigam, learned Addl. Solicitor
General of India and Sri K.C. Sinha,
learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India,
appearing for Union of India, Sri Adish
Agarwal,
Addl.
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri Sanjai Goswami and Sri
S.K. Maurya, learned Standing counsel,
and Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Prakash Padia who assisted
the Court in this matter.

7. The question for consideration as
framed by this Court by means of order
dated August 29,2002 may be excerpted
below.

"Whether
the
employees
of
Religious/Charitable
Institution/
Establishment
are
the
employees
protected under the Minimum Wages Act
or any other statutory enactment in the
matter of wages and if not, whether a
citizen of India employed in any religious
or charitable Institution/Establishment is
entitled to protection in the matter of
wages
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India?

8. The present proceeding under the
minimum Wages Act were triggered after
issue of notice (Annexure 1 to the
petition). This notice presupposed the
petitioner Sri Satya Narain Tulsi Manas
Mandir as a factory/firm under the
Minimum Wages Act and the case came
to be registered on the basis of the said
notice.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
began his argument by submitting that
Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir
is a temple of Sanatan Dharam Sect and it
is a religious place where devotees throng
for darshan and pujan and that it is neither
a firm/factory nor a shop or commercial
establishment. It is further submitted that
no commercial activities are carried on
within the temple precincts and the
persons who have been shown In the list
attached to the notice dated 8.8.1995 as
the employees of the Establishment are in
fact 'Sevadars' who have been kept to
facilitate worship and Pujan of the idols
by the devotees who pay a visit to the
temple and as such the provisions of
Minimum Wages Act are not applicable
to the petitioner. It was further submitted
that the question of jurisdiction was raised
by the petitioner before the respondent
no.1 and the order passed by him to the
effect that the question of jurisdiction
could be raised after the evidence is
closed, cannot be sustainable. He further
submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is
a temple and persons have been engaged
as Sevadar to maintain the temple and to
facilitate darshan and pujan of the idols
established in the temple by the devotees
and, therefore, the entire proceedings
against the petitioner under the Minimum
Wages Act are without Jurisdiction. He
further
submitted/argued
that
the
respondent no. l has acted illegally and
with material irregularity in the matter by
refusing to decide the question of
Jurisdiction as to whether the proceedings
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
971
against the petitioner under the Minimum
Wages
Act
are
maintainable
as a
preliminary issue.
10. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 3 argued that the
question whether the petitioner is a
factory/Firm or a shop or commercial
establishment could only be determined
by leading evidence and the order passed
by the respondent no.1 directing this
question to be decided only after evidence
is closed, is absolutely in accordance with
aw. The learned counsel did not dispute
that the petitioner is a temple belonging to
Vaishnav sect and idols are kept therein
for worship by the devotees but since a
counter has been set up and tickets are
sold to the devotees it shall be considered
to be a shop or commercial establishment
and the persons engaged by the petitioner
are
the
employees
of
commercial
establishment. He further urged that the
writ petition should be dismissed as the
order passed by the respondent no. l
directing
to
adduce
evidence
was
perfectly valid. According to him, no
decision is required on the application
filed by the petitioner at this stage.

11. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, it is necessary to consider the
relevant provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, U.P. Minimum Wages
(U.P. Amendment) Act, 1920, U.P.
Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 and U.P.
Dookan
Aur
Vainjya
Adhishthan
Niyamavali, 1963.

Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 which defines "employer" is
being reproduced herein below:-

"2(e) "employer" means any person
who employs, whether directly or through
another person, or whether on behalf of
himself or any other person, one or more
employees in any scheduled employment
in respect of which minimum rates of
wages have been fixed under this Act, and
includes, except in sub-section (3) of
Section 26-
(i) ..................

12. Scheduled employments are
mentioned
in
Schedule
II
of
the
notification dated 31.3.1978 issued under
Section 22-F of the Minimum Wages Act
and
published
in
U.P.
Gazette
Extraordinary
dated
31.3.1978.
Employment in shops and Employment in
any
Commercial
Establishment
are
mentioned at serials no. 36 and 47
respectively in Schedule II Par 1.The
notification dated 18.1.1992 provides for
minimum rate of wages in respect of the
employees employed in (i) commercial
establishment in U.P. and (ii) Shops in
U.P.

13. Section 2 (4) of the, Uttar
Pradesh Dookan Aur Vanljya Adhisthan
Adhiniyam, 1962 defines Commercial
establishment' which means any premises,
not being the premises of a factory, or a
shop, wherein any trade, or incidental or
ancillary thereto, is carried on for profit
and
includes
a
premises
wherein,
Journalistic or printing work, or business
of banking, insurance, stocks and shares,
brokerage or produce exchange is carried
on, or which is used as theatre, cinema, or
for any other public amusement or
entertainment or where the clerical and
other, establishment of a factory, to whom
the provisions of the Factories Act 1948,
do no apply, work. Similarly Section 2
(16) defines \ shop' means any premises
where any wholesale or retail trade or
business is carried n, or where services
are rendered to customers, and includes,
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
all offices, godowns or warehouses,
whether in the same premises or not,
which are used in connection with such
trade or business.

14. The definition of commercial
establishment makes it clear that it must
be
connected
with
trade,
business
manufacture or any work connected with
the same. Similarly it is clear from the
definition of shop that any premises
where any wholesale or retail trade or
business is carried on or where services
are rendered to customers in a shop.

15. The expression" Wages" which
is defined in section 2 (h) of the Minimum
Wages Act means all remuneration,
capable of being expressed in terms of
money, which would be payable to a
person employed in respect of his
employment or of work done in such
employment and the word "employee" as
defined in section 2(i) means any person
who is employed for hire or reward to do
any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or
clerical, in a scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed; and includes an outworker to whom any articles or materials
are given out by another person to be
made up, cleaned, washed, altered,
ornamented, finished, repaired, adopted or
otherwise processed for sale for the
purposes of the trade or business of that
other person.

16. Now in the above background it
is to be seen whether from the pleadings
of the parties, Shree Satya Narayan Tulsi
Manas
Mandir
is
a
commercial
establishment or a shop. According to the
pleadings
of
the
petitioner
in
the
petitioner's
establishment
about
29
persons are working and they are getting
wages as mentioned in the list-appended
alongwith the notice-dated 8.8.1995.
From the pleadings of the parties it is
established that the petitioner is involved
in the activities relating to Sanatan
Dharma sect of Hindu religion.

17. From the perusal of the counteraffidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondents, it appears that the workmen
were engaged by the petitioner to look
after the premises of the Manas Mandir,
sale of books, issuing the tickets and
collection of fare, checking of tickets and
their collection etc. It further appears that
the main source of income of the
petitioner is from the sale of books, sale
of tickets of exhibition and rent realized
from the shops and Bank.

18. The petitioner urged that the sale
of tickets for entering in the temple
premises where moving idols of various
deities are kept as well as sale of religious
books are part of religious activities for
maintenance of Radha Krishna Leela
Jhanki which is run by the Thakur Das
Surekha Charitable Fund. It IS not run for
profit but for propagation of religious and
cultural heritage of Hindu religion. Rupee
one charged from the devotees is not for
public amusement or entertainment but
for the maintenance of the Jhanki and
payment of electricity charges as without
this the Jhanki can not continue further.
The books published by the Thakur Das
Surekha Charitable Fund are available
and distributed free of cost and for
outsiders the expenses of sending the
books by registered post are charged
otherwise the books are published and
made available to the public on the basis
of no profit and no loss. The money
received from the entry charges and rent
of the shops etc. is utilized to meet out the
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
973
heavy expenses of the maintenance of the
temple without any move of profit. The
petitioner has stated in paragraph 13 of
the rejoinder affidavit that the workers
engaged in the petitioner's establishment
are there with the sense of their religious
duty and not for earning of their
livelihood and they are given all the
facilities. The petitioner has denied the
allegation of denial of leave, earned or
sick or casual, to the workers. It has been
stated that the total yearly earning of the
temple is approximately Rs.50,000/- for
which proper account is maintained.

19. Shri B. N. Singh has contended
that the petitioner is a 'commercial
establishment' and in this context the
definition of 'commercial establishment'
as contained in Uttar Pradesh Dookan Aur
Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam will have
to be looked Into. The said at envisages
that
commercial
establishment
is
a
premises wherein any trade, business,
manufacture or any work in connection
with, or incidental or ancillary thereto is
carried on for profit. From the aforesaid
definition, it is clear that Manas Mandir is
not a premises wherein any trade,
business or manufacturing work is carried
on for profit and it is a place for religious
activities wherein idols of different deities
are kept for Puja and darshan by the
devotees, religious books are distributed
free of cost and Re.1/- is charged as entry
free from the devotees for proper
maintenance and management of the
temple and not for any profit. No material
is available on record to establish that
there was any profit-oriented motive In
establishing the Manas Mandir or in
establishing the moving idols of the
deities. Thus, it does not transpire that the
petitioner is a commercial establishment
as defined under the U.P. Dookan Aur
Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962 and
as such, the notice issued to the petitioner
by the Opp. party no.1 is without
Jurisdiction and the entire proceeding
initiated on that basis is also without any
basis and is liable to be quashed.

20. It was also canvassed by the
learned counsel for the Opp. parties that
even though the workers are engaged in
charitable or religious activities, they are
also the citizens of India and they have
every right to live with dignity. Article 21
of
the
Constitution
of
India
also
guarantees their livelihood and they are
also entitled to get such wages to keep
their pot boiling. Merely because they are
engaged in religious activities in religious
establishment, they cannot be denied their
basic right of earning livelihood and in
consequence, cannot be allowed to be
exploited and they too are entitled to basic
human right and to get minimum wages
from the earnings of religious and
charitable
institutions
like
temples,
mosque and churches. In the above
conspectus, it falls to the Government to
initiate steps in order to secure them
decent living and minimum wages.

21. After hearing both the counsel
for the parties, issue for determination
cropped up if employees of religious or
charitable Institutions/Establishment are
employees
not
protected
under
the
Minimum Wages Act or any other
statutory provisions in the matter of
wages and if not whether a citizen of
India employed in any religious or
charitable Institutions/Establishment is
entitled to protection in the matter of
wages
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India. As a necessary
consequence, notices were issued to State
of U. P. as also the Union of India. Sri
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
S.C. Rai, the learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel accepted notice on
behalf of State of U.P. and learned Senior
Standing counsel accepted notice on
behalf of Union of India. Learned Addl.
Chief Standing Counsel representing the
State of U.P. and learned Senior Standing
counsel for Union of India sought time for
instructions in the matter and they were
accorded four weeks' time to file their
respective counsel affidavits. Both the
counsel sought further time on 22.10.2002
and therefore 26.11.2002 was fixed for
further hearing. On 26111 Nov 2002 both
the counsel were granted one month's and
no more time to file, counter affidavit or
to take appropriate steps in this regard. On
11.8.2003/ learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel made a statement before the
Court that he has received instructions not
to file any counter affidavit or resist the
issues involved in the writ petition. He
also read out copy of the letter issued by
the Labour Secretary dated 10.1.2003,
which was placed on record. Sri K.C.
Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India filed a short counter affidavit on
the question.

The text of short counter affidavit as
contained in para 3 thereof is that the
minimum wage is a concurrent subject of
III List, Seventh Schedule of Constitution
of India and under the statutory provisions
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, both
the Central and the State Government are
the appropriate Government to fix, revise
and enforce minimum wages of the
workers
engaged
in
the
scheduled
employments
under
their
respective
jurisdictions
and
therefore,
in
implementing provisions of the Act, the
role of the Central Government is of
advisory in nature as both Central
Government and the State Government
implement the Act independent of each
other. In para 6 of the short counter
affidavit, the specific averment is that the
Central Government is the appropriate
Government under Minimum Wages Act
only in relation to any scheduled
employment carried on or by under the
authority of the Central government or a
Railway administration, or in relation to
Mines, Oil Fields or Major Ports or any
Corporation established by a Central Act.
For remaining employments, the State
Government
is
the
appropriate
Government. In para 7 of the short
counter affidavit, the averment is that
religious
institutions
do
not
stand
included in the schedule of employments
in the Central Sphere and ultimately, it
has been prayed that necessary direction,
if any, be given to the State of U.P. to add
any new employment in the Schedule of
employments within the sphere of State
Government.
It was
in
the
above
backdrop that the case was again heard.
Having gone through all this tedium, I
heard Sri Adish Agarwal, learned Addl.
Advocate General, learned Counsel for
the Opp. Parties and also Dr. R.G. Padia,
learned Senior Advocate, who entered
appearance to assist the Court in the
matter on the request of the Court and
also Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Addl.
Solicitor General of India who assisted
the Court.

22. In view of the fats stated and
borne out from the pleadings of the
parties, it is to be seen whether the
petitioner is an employer within the
definition of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 and the persons working in Shree
Satya Narayan Tulsi Manas Mandir are in
the scheduled employment. From a
punctilious reading of the notifications
issued by the Government from time to
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
975
time under the Minimum Wages Act;
1948,
U.P.
Minimum
Wages
(Amendment) Act, and U.P. Minimum
Wages Rules, 1952 it is found that there is
no
notification
providing
for
categorization of the workers engaged by
Shree Satya Narayan Tulsi Manas Mandir
or any religious or charitable Trust or
Math, Mandir etc.

23. As stated supra, a question of
pivotal importance begs consideration in
the above conspectus and it is whether the
workers who are engaged In various
Charitable/ Religious Establishments viz.
in Temples, Maths, Monasteries etc
within the fold of Hindu Religion have
also a constitutional right to be given
minimum wages notwithstanding the fact
that Minimum Wages Act and the Rules
framed thereunder are not intended for
application for the reason that these
institutions cannot be said to be a
shop/commercial
establishment
or
industry?
In
connection
with
this
question, I feel called to deal with this
aspect on the admitted fact that the
workers mentioned in Annexure 1 to the
notice are working in the charitable and
religious establishment of the petitioner
but are not getting wages sufficient to
keep the life meaningful, complete and
worth living i.e. something more than
survival of animal existence. I am told
across the bar that in majority of religious
and
charitable
institutions,
notwithstanding the fact that huge income
is flowing to their coffer from the
devotees, the condition of the workers
employed in such institutions is very
dismissal
and
they
are
keeping
a
precarious existence as the Minimum
Wages Act is not applicable by reason of
the fact that such institutions do not fall
within the ambit of definition of a Shop or
commercial establishment or industry.
Most of these workers like Opposite party
no. 3 get very exiguous amount, which is
too meager and incapable of protecting
their own lives and the lives of 'their
family members.

24. It is engrafted in Article 21 of
the Constitution that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty
except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. It is also essential to
refer to Articles 37 38 39 and 43
embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of
India. Article 38 of the Constitution is
being
excerpted
below
for
ready
reference.

"Article 38. State to secure a social
order for the promotion of welfare of the
people-
(1) The State shall strive to promote
the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social
order in which Justice, social, economic
and
political
shall
inform
all
the
institutions of the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular,
strive to minimize the inequalities in
income, and endeavour to eliminate
inequalities
in
status,
facilities
and
opportunities,
not
only
amongst
individuals but also amongst groups of
people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations."

"39. Certain principles of policy to
be followed by the State:-

(a) That the citizens, men and women
equally, have the right to an adequate
means of livelihood;
(b) x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(c) That the operation of the economic
system does not result in the
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment;
(d)
x
x
x
x
x
(e) That the health and strength of
workers, men and women, and the
tender age of children are not abused
and that citizens are not forced by
economic
necessity
to
enter
avocations unsuited to their age or
strength; "

"43. living wage, etc, for workers.-
The State shall endeavour to secure, by
suitable
legislation
or
economic
organization or in any other way, to all
workers,
agricultural,
industrial
or
otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions
of work ensuring a decent standard of life
and full enjoyment of leisure and social
and
cultural
opportunities
and,
in
particular, the State shall endeavour to
promote
cottage
industries
on
an
individual or co-operative basis in rural
areas."

Article 38 (2) of the Constitution
specifically mandates that the State shall,
in particular, strive to minimize the
inequalities in income and endeavor to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities
and opportunities, not only amongst
individuals but also amongst groups of
people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations. Similarly,
Article 43 mandates that the State shall
endeavour
to
secure,
by
suitable
legislation or economic organization or in
any
other
way,
to
all
workers,
agricultural, Industrial or otherwise, work
a living wage, conditions of work
ensuring a decent standard of life and full
enjoyment of leisure and social and
cultural opportunities. For the workers
employed in shops and commercial
establishments the State has already
provided
minimum
wages
Act
and
various other welfare legislations but for
the workers who are engaged and working
in charitable and religious institutions and
are bleeding themselves for the upkeep of
the institutions and for gratifying the
spiritual urges of the public at large and in
number of cases such hapless workers
keep themselves on tenterhook round the
clock or in the minimum 12 to 8 hours a
day, the State seems to be still oblivious
of their suffering and has not made any
legislation for their welfare as yet.

25. Articles 14 of the Constitution of
India make it clear that the workers in the
employment of such institutions cannot be
discriminated against simply on the
grounds that they are employed in
religious and charitable institutions which
were founded not with the motive of
earning profits but for religious and
charitable
purposes.
Considering
the
provisions of Article 21, 38 (2) and 43 of
the Constitution of India, the view is
irresistible that such workers are also
entitled to get-minimum wages as right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Article 43 of the Constitution of
India also makes it clear and does not
make any discrimination while stating "to
all workers, agricultural, industrial or
otherwise" and all such workers are
entitled to get a living wage. The word
'living wage' contained in Article 43
means the wages by which a worker can
maintain his life to live with dignity with
all other facilities as contained and
implicit in Article 21 as held by the
Supreme Court in various decisions.
While Interpreting 'living wage' to secure
to all workers a living wage, conditions of
work ensuring a decent standard of life
and full enjoyment of leisure and social
and cultural opportunities, anybody could
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
977
come to the conclusion that living wage
means at least minimum wage. It has been
held in various pronouncements by the
Supreme Court that fundamental rights
and directive principles of State Policy are
complementary and supplementary to
each other. Paragraphs 138 and 141 of the
judgment in the case of Unnikrishnan
K.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 are
being quoted below:

"138. This Court has also been
consistently adopting the approach that
Fundamental
Rights
and
Directive
Principles
are
supplementary
and
complementary to each other and that the
provisions in Part III should be interpreted
having regard to the preamble and the
Directive Principles of the State policy.
The initial hesitation to recognize the
profound significance of Part IV has been
given up long ago. We may explain.
While moving for consideration the
interim report on Fundamental Rights,
Sardar Vallabhai Patel described both the
rights mentioned in parts III and IV as
Fundamental Rights- one justiciable and
other
non-justiciable.
In
his
supplementary report, he sated:

"There were two parts of the report;
one contains Fundamental Rights which
were justiciable and the other part of the
report refers to Fundamental Rights which
were not justiciable but were Directives."

26. This statement indicates the
significance
attached
to
Directive
Principles by the founding fathers. Yet
another decision on the point is Minerva
Mills v. Union of India2. It is true that in
the State of Madras v. Champakam

1 AIR 1993 SC 2178
2 AIR 1980 SC 1789
Darairajan3 fundamental rights were
held
pre-eminent
vis-a-vis
Directive
principles but since then there has been a
perceptible shift in this Court's approach
to the inter-play of Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles.

"141. It is thus well established by
the decisions of this Court that the
provisions of Part III and IV are
supplementary and complementary to
each other and that Fundamental Rights
are but a means to achieve the goal
indicated in Part IV. It is also held that
Fundamental Rights must be construed in
the light of the Directive Principles. It is
from the above standpoint that question
no. 1 has to be approached."

27. The case of Francis Corlie v.
Union Territory of Delhi4 was the first
case in which right to life was interpreted.
It says that right to life includes the right
to live with human dignity. Hon. Supreme
Court has now settled in number of cases
that right of livelihood is a right to live
and let all other live with human dignity
and all that goes along-with it, namely,
the bare necessities of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter
over the head and facilities for reading,
writing and expressing oneself in diverse
forms freely moving about and mixing
and commingling with fellow human
beings. It further states that right to life
includes the right to the basic necessities
of life and also the right to carry on such
functions and activities as constitute the
bar minimum expression of the humanself. Every act, which offends against or
impairs human dignity would constitute
deprivation of this right to live and it

3 AIR 1951 SC 2260
4 AIR 1981 SC 745
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
would have to be in accordance with
reasonable,
fair
and
just
procedure
established bylaw which stands the test of
other fundamental rights. It was held in
this case \. by the Supreme court that
these
are
necessary
components
of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.

28. Right of livelihood has further
been defined in A.I.R. 1984 S.C., 802;
A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180 and 1992 (IV)
S.C.C. 465. In the case of Olga Tellis v.
Municipal Corporation right to life has
been further defined in paragraphs 32 and
33 of the judgment. Relevant extracts
from paragraphs 32 and 33 are being
quoted below: -

"32.......... If the right to livelihood is
not treated as a part of the constitution
right to life, the easiest way of depriving a
person of his right to life would be to
deprive him of his means of livelihood to
the point of abrogation. ......"
33. Article
39(a)
of
the
Constitution,
which
is
a
directive
principle of State policy, provides that the
State shall, in particular, direct its policy
towards securing that the citizens, men
and women equally, have the right to
adequate means of livelihood. Article 41,
which is another directive principle,
provides, inter-alia, that that State shall,
within the limits of its economic capacity
and
development,
make
effective
provision for securing the right to work in
cases of unemployment and all the
undeserved want. Article 37 provides that
the directive principles, though not
enforceable by any court, are nevertheless
fundamental in the governance of the
country. The principles contained in Arts.
39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equal
fundamental in the understanding and
interpretation of the meaning and content
of fundamental rights. If there is an
obligation upon the State to secure to the
citizens an adequate means of livelihood
and the right to work, it would be sheer
pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood
from the content of the right to life. The
State may not, by affirmative action, be
compellable to provide adequate means of
livelihood or work to the citizens. But,
any person, who is deprived of his right to
livelihood except according to just and
fair procedure established by law, can
challenge the deprivation as off ending
the right to life conferred by Article 21."

The above case also laid down the law
that any person who is deprived of his
right to livelihood except according to just
and fair procedure established by law, can
challenge the deprivation as offending the
right to life conferred by Article 21.

29.
There
are
various
other
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
which
this
principle
was
followed
subsequently in all such cases. In D.S.
Nakara V5. Union of India (A.I.R. 1983
S.C., 130), the Supreme Court held that if
an under privileged also are clamouring
for their rights and are seeking the
intervention of the Court with touching
faith and confidence in the Court, the
Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem
their constitutional oath and do justice no
less to the pavement dweller than to the
guests of the Five Star hotel.

30. The Supreme Court in Lingappa
Pochanna V5. State of Maharashtra
(A.I.R. 1985 S.C., 389) has laid down the
law relating to distributive justice to
achieve a fair division of wealth among
the members of society based upon the
principle' from each according to his
3 All] S.S.N. Tulsi Manas Mandir V. Workman Compensation Commissioner and others
979
capacity, to each according to his needs'.
Distributive justice comprehends more
than achieved lessening of inequalities by
different taxation, giving debt relief or
distribution of property owned by one
many who have none by imposing ceiling
on holdings, both agricultural and urban,
or by direct regulation of contractual
transactions
by
forbidding
certain
transactions and, perhaps, by requiring
others. It also means that those who have
been deprived of their properties by
unconscionable bargaining should he
restored their property. All such laws may
take the form of forced re-distribution of
wealth as a means of achieving a fair
division of material resources among the
members of society or there may be
legislative control of unfair agreements.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed
Ram (A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 847) the Supreme
Court has further elaborated that right
under Article 21 embraces not only
physical existence of life but the quality
of life and denial of that right would be
denial of the life as understood in its
richness and fullness by the ambit of the
Constitution. Right to live with dignity is
a fundamental right as held by Apex
Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India5. Article 38 (2) was regarded as
another
constitutional
imperative.
In
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka the
Supreme Court has further repeated that
"right to life" is the compendious
expression for all those rights, which the
courts must enforce because they are
basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It
extends to the full range of conduct,
which the individual is free to pursue. The
right to education flows directly from
right to life. The right to life under Article
21 and the dignity of an individual cannot

5 AIR 1978 SC-597
be assured unless it is accompanied by the
right to education. From the above it is
clear that right to earn wages to maintain
human dignity with all such connected
matters in a dignified manner is part of
right to life. It is further held that
depriving a person of his right to
livelihood amounts to depriving him of
his right to life.

31. India is a signatory to the
Universal Declaration of 1948. Article 25
of the Universal Declaration, 1948, which
also provides such right to citizen of
India.

32. It has come on record through
the means of affidavit that the petitioner
earns huge money during certain period of
the year and that money is used and
appropriated by the management and the
office bearers or the petitioner to their
use. Each and every person working in a
religious
and
charitable
institution,
whether he is an ordinary worker or an
office bearer, is the custodian to protect
the property of the establishment. Even
the Chairman, Secretary, Trustees of such
institutions are workers in similar way
and have been engaged to protect the
property of the institution and to follow
the aims and objects for which the
institution has been established. The
Mahants, Secretaries and heads of such
religious and charitable institutions are
like other workers who have also been
engaged to achieve the same goal. The
wealth collected or received by the
religious and charitable institutions is to
be distributed in a rationale manner to
protect the life and livelihood of the
workers and their family members.

33. In these circumstance, I direct
the State to make certain scheme for such
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
religious and charitable institutions and
frame regulation in the scheme to provide
protection to such workers.