Not Purely Religious Or Spiritual: Dharmarth Trust Qualifies As “Industry” Under Industrial Disputes Act; J&K And Ladakh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary has dismissed a writ petition by the J&K Dharmarth Trust and upheld an Industrial Tribunal award that set aside the termination of a Trust employee engaged as a sanitation worker, directing continuity of service with 50% back wages. The dispute concerned the worker’s disengagement on allegations of absence from duty, which the Tribunal treated as illegal. The Court held that, given the systemic, organised and commercial nature of the Trust’s activities, it meets the statutory definition of an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It also found that the Trust’s operations are not purely religious or spiritual carried out in a selfless, voluntary manner, making labour law protections applicable.
The writ petition was filed by a religious trust challenging an ex parte award dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jammu, on a reference made by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The Tribunal had declared the termination of a daily-wage Safaikaramchari illegal, set aside the termination order, directed continuity of service, and awarded 50% back wages from the date of termination till the passing of the award.
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the trust did not fall within the definition of an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the workman was not covered by the statutory definition of “workman.” It was further argued that Section 25-F of the Act was inapplicable and that the Tribunal had proceeded ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing.
The respondent asserted that the trust carried out multifarious commercial and systematic activities, owned markets, hotels, and rented commercial establishments, and therefore qualified as an industry. It was also contended that the petitioner failed to challenge the reference notification at the appropriate stage and that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches. The Tribunal record showed that the petitioner did not file objections despite opportunity and was proceeded ex parte.
The Court examined whether the Industrial Disputes Act applied to the petitioner trust and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction. It observed that “to determine as to whether the Industrial Disputes Act can apply to the Dharmarth Trust, it has to be seen as to whether the activities of the Trust are commercial or analogous to trade or business or even if the surplus generated is used for charitable purposes.”
The Court recorded that “the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the petitioner Dharmarth Trust has to be determined by the functional nature of its specific activities not just its overall charitable designations.”
Referring to settled legal principles, the Court stated that “the courts in India have consistently applied the Triple test and dominant nature test established as crystallized in the landmark case of Bangalore Water-Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. R. Rajappa & Ors.”
On facts, the Court observed that “the petitioner Trust was having the activities in a systemic and organized manner, and the activities of the Trust were for the production and distribution of services.” It further recorded that “the petitioner Dharmarth Trust was carrying out the activities, which were not purely religious/spiritual in a selfless and volunteer manner.”
With regard to the workman’s status, the Court noted that “the respondent No.2-Chand Ram was working as a Safaikaramchari on wages,” and that “the relationship between the petitioner-Trust and the respondent No.2 was that of an employer and a workman.”
On procedural conduct, the Court found that “the petitioner-Trust has intentionally and deliberately absented itself from the Court below and was rightly set ex parte.”
The Court also recorded that the petitioner had neither challenged the reference notification nor led evidence before the Tribunal, and that such issues could not be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
The Court directed that “the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. The petition is found to be misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. As a result, the petition is dismissed along with the interim applications. The impugned award is upheld.” Finally, it directed that “the matter stands disposed of along with connected application(s).”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Thakur, Advocate
Case Title: Dharmarth Trust J&K v. Industrial Tribunal & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-JMU:4194
Case Number: OWP No. 796/2005
Bench: Justice M. A. Chowdhary
