[2025:RJ-JP:18159] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8980/2015 Nanda Son Of Shri Jagannath Meena, aged about 57 years, Khajapura Via Padampura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. President, Shri Digambar Jain Atishaya Kshetra, Shri Padampura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur Raj. 2. Manager, Shri Digambar Jain Atishaya Kshetra, Shri Padampura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur Raj. ----Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.L. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 30/04/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 24.02.2015 passed by learned Labour Court No.1, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) in LCR No.259/1998 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner-workman (for short “the workman”), the statement of claim filed by him has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim against the respondents stating therein that he worked with them as mason from 03.01.1977 till his services were retrenched on 08.11.1988 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act of 1947”). It was, therefore, prayed that the order of retrenchment be quashed [2025:RJ-JP:18159] (2 of 3) [CW-8980/2015] and set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents, in their reply, raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the claim under the provisions of the Act of 1947 on the premise that the respondent No.1 being a social and religious Trust registered under the Rajasthan Trust Act, 1961, it was beyond the scope of the Act of 1947. After recording the evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim vide award dated 24.02.2015 holding that the respondent No.1 is not covered under the definition of “industry”. Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the workman is that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that since, he was employed as mason in the construction activity being carried out by the respondents, it fell within the mischief of “industry” and since, the provisions of the Act of 1947 were violated before retrenching his services, he was entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 24.02.2015 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the statement of claim, the learned Labour Court has, after appreciating the evidence available on record as [2025:RJ-JP:18159] (3 of 3) [CW-8980/2015] well as scanning the catena of precedential law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also of various High Courts, recorded a categorical finding that the workman was employed in the construction activity which was not the predominant work of the respondent-Trust. It was further held that merely maintaining Dharamshalas/Bhojanshala on nominal charge from devotees did not alter character of the religious and charitable institution. The learned Labour Court also held that there was not an iota of evidence to suggest that the respondents ever indulged in commercial or trade activities like hotels or guest houses. This Court is in respectful agreement with the findings so recorded by the learned Labour Court. It is a well settled legal principle that whether a religious and charitable trust would fall within the definition of “industry” is a question of fact which has to be determined in the factual scenario of the case. In the instant case, it has been held by the learned Labour Court, after appreciation of the evidence available, that the respondent-Trust did not have any trapping of the “industry” so as to be amenable to the provisions of the Act of 1947. These findings have not been demonstrated to be suffering from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/110