The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the Minimum Wages Act does not apply to temples and mutts

The court stated that there is a distinction between a temple and a mutt in the framework of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987.

“A Math is an organization led by a person whose major responsibility is to teach, propagate religious thought, and provide religious training, among other things. A temple, on the other hand, is a building devoted to and utilized as a site of public religious worship “While allowing a writ suit brought by Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt challenging memos directing payment of minimum salaries, Justice DVSS Somayajulu made the observation.

It was argued in court that, while both can be classified as religious institutions, there is a fundamental difference between a Math and a temple, and that in the case of the former, authorities do not have the ability or control to intervene in the operations of a Math under the 1987 Act. The state-supported the letters by citing the equal pay for equal effort concept.

According to the court:

The Commissioner’s general power of supervision, in this Court’s opinion, does not extend to interfering with secular activities and is limited in scope. A reading of section 8 reveals that the power of supervision and control includes the ability to issue an order to guarantee that the institution is effectively administered and that the money is spent for the purpose for which it was established. The conjunction “and” makes it clear that the goal of this power under section 8 (1) is to ensure that monies be solely used for the reasons for which they were intended. Section 8(2), which begins with a non-obstante phrase, also refers to the exercise of powers “conferred on him, or the functions that the Act “entitles” him to.

There is no statutory provision that shows the Court that; this particular power to provide directives to pay minimum wages, etc., exists. Finally, this Court believes that when section 8(1) and section 49 of the Act are read together; the Commissioner’s limited powers become evident. They are restricted to the repair, expenditure, and exploitation of the “Only dittam. If there is a disagreement, the case must be taken to a court for resolution (Section 49-Proviso). Similarly, the changes to sections 51-53, etc., where the Commissioner has been replaced by the “Dharmika Parishad,” make it obvious that the Commissioner’s role is limited.”


Read more blogs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.