The Calcutta High Court dismissed the industrial tribunal's award, holding that the Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth is not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the employee could not be deemed a "workman".
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth, filed a writ petition challenging the award dated 11 June 2025 passed by the Fourth Industrial Tribunal (Case No. VIII-08/2018). The award had held that the respondent, Bijoy Biswas, was a "workman" because the Church was an "industry" under the ID Act.
Key Facts
- 31 July 2003: Respondent appointed as caretaker of St. Gregory’s Chapel and attendant of Sir Cathick Paul Chater Home.
- 3 March 2017: Respondent’s service terminated without a show-cause notice or disciplinary proceeding.
- 26 April 2018: Government of West Bengal issued a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, alleging an industrial dispute.
- 5 October 2018: Intra-court appeal filed against the reference order; disposed on 2 September 2024 directing the Tribunal to decide the maintainability of the reference as a preliminary issue.
- 16 May 2016: Memorandum of Settlement between the Church and the Union, covering gratuity, leave, and other conditions.
- 11 June 2025: Industrial Tribunal awarded relief to the respondent, treating the Church as an industry.
- 7 July 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 29 July 2026: Judgment delivered.
- Appointment Letter Clause VIII: Allows termination with one month’s notice or salary in lieu.
- Wages: Basic Rs.2,500, Dearness Allowance Rs.1,275, Tiffin allowance Rs.10 per day; DA merged with basic wages after 2005.
Procedural History
- 26 April 2018: Reference to Industrial Tribunal.
- 5 Oct 2018: Appeal against reference; disposed 2 Sep 2024.
- 11 Jun 2025: Tribunal award (respondent as workman, Church as industry).
- 28 Mar 2026: Writ petition (W.P.A. 27842 of 2025) filed before Calcutta High Court.
- 7 Jul 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 29 Jul 2026: Judgment delivered.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (Church): Argues that its activities are purely religious and charitable, lack profit motive, and do not satisfy the triple test (systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation, production/distribution of goods or services for material wants). Therefore, it is not an "industry" and the respondent is not a "workman".
- Respondent (Bijoy Biswas): Claims that he was employed under a contract of service, received wages, and that the Church’s operation of Sir Cathick Paul Chater Home constitutes systematic service provision, satisfying the definition of industry.
- State/Union: Supports respondent, relying on the appointment letter and the memorandum of settlement, asserting that the Church’s activities qualify as an industry and that the termination was illegal.
Relief Sought
- Petitioner: Quash the award dated 11 June 2025, set aside the reference, and declare that the dispute is not maintainable under the ID Act.
- Respondent: Seek reinstatement, back wages, and compensation for illegal termination.
- State: Claims a lump-sum compensation of Rs.12,00,000 for the respondent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth qualifies as an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently whether the respondent can be treated as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the same Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The Church’s activities are religious, charitable, and funded by donations; there is no profit motive.
- Cites Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548) for the triple test and argues that spiritual services fail the “production or distribution of goods or services for material wants” limb.
- Relies on Lawrence Messy v. Diocese of Delhi (AIR 2019 DEL 1526) and Assem Abbas v. Rajghat Samadhi Committee to show that purely religious institutions are excluded.
- Emphasises that the burden of proving the existence of an industry lies on the claimant, which the petitioner has not met.
For the Respondent/State
- Points to the appointment letter, wage payments, and the memorandum of settlement as evidence of an employer-employee relationship.
- Argues that the Church runs Sir Cathick Paul Chater Home, a systematic service-providing establishment, satisfying the triple test.
- Relies heavily on Bangalore Water Supply and D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee to assert that charitable motives do not preclude an activity from being an industry.
- Cites Clause VIII of the appointment letter to demonstrate contractual termination rights.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the definition of "industry" in Section 2(j): any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers, including any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation of workmen. It emphasized that the definition must be read in its functional context, focusing on the nature of the activity rather than the motive.
"The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations."
The Court adopted the triple test articulated in Bangalore Water Supply: (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized cooperation between employer and employee, and (iii) production or distribution of goods/services calculated to satisfy material human wants. It held that the third limb excludes purely spiritual or religious services, which are not marketable and do not satisfy “material wants”.
The judgment distinguished the present case from Safdarjung Hospital and Banerji, noting that those decisions dealt with entities engaged in tangible service provision for the public, whereas the Church’s core purpose is spiritual propagation. The Court observed that charitable institutions may employ staff, but the nature of the activity - faith-based worship and charitable care - does not meet the “res commercium” requirement.
The Court also addressed the burden of proof. It affirmed that the claimant (the petitioner) must establish, on a pre-ponderance of evidence, that the institution falls within the statutory definition. The affidavits, appointment letter, and wage records presented by the respondent were deemed insufficient to transform a religious charity into an “industry”.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the Church is not an industry under Section 2(j), and the respondent cannot be classified as a “workman” under Section 2(s). The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, rendering the tribunal’s award ultra vires.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 11 June 2025, held that the Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth is not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently the respondent is not a "workman" under Section 2(s). The writ petition was allowed, and all related applications and interim orders were dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Religious Institutions Are Generally Excluded from the "Industry" Definition
- Courts will apply the triple test strictly; spiritual services fail the material-needs limb.
- Mere employer-employee relationships and wage payments are insufficient to convert a charitable or religious body into an industry.
The Triple Test Remains Controlling
- Systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation, and production/distribution of marketable goods or services are all required.
- Absence of a profit motive does not rescue an entity; the nature of the activity is decisive.
Burden of Proof Lies on the Claimant
- The party asserting that an institution is an industry must produce positive material evidence satisfying each limb of the test.
- Affidavits and wage slips alone will not meet the evidentiary threshold.
Practical takeaways for practitioners
- Before filing an industrial dispute against a religious or charitable body, obtain documentary proof that the activity is commercial in nature.
- Anticipate reliance on Bangalore Water Supply and be prepared to demonstrate “res commercium”.
- If the primary purpose is spiritual or charitable, consider alternative remedies outside the ID Act.
