HC rules evangelist not a workman

In simpler words,it implies that evangelists cannot approach labour courts with the plea that they are like other workmen employed in an industry. In a detailed judgment,Justice Kannan has referred to the remarks made by the House of Lords in this regard.

The House of Lords answered the question about the status of a pastor,who was being paid wages. The House asked as to what the duty of a pastor is and what are the activities meant to be. The House of Lords held that “a pastor is called and accepts the call. He does not devote his working life but his whole life to the church and his religion. His duties are defined and his activities are dictated not by contract but by conscience. He is the servant of God”.

The judgement further highlights the remarks of the House of Lords: “If his manner of serving God is not acceptable to the church,the services of the pastor can be brought to an end by the church in accordance with the rules,then. The law will ensure that a pastor is not deprived of his salaried pastorate save in accordance with the provisions of the book of rules,but an Industrial Tribunal cannot determine whether a reasonable church would severe the link between minister and congregation”.

Expressing his views on the issue,Justice Kannan ruled: “An evangelist has only spiritual functions to perform. The dictionary and word power guide gives the meaning of ‘evangelise’ as ‘to convert’ and ‘evangelist’ as ‘a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith’. I hold,therefore,the claimant/ evangelist is not a workman.”

On the question as to whether a diocese is an industry or not,the judge has ruled that the decision in this issue would depend on individual facts of a case.

However,the judgment clarifies that a diocese cannot be an industry to claim benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The directions were passed on a petition filed by the Diocese of Amritsar of the Church of North India against their evangelist Buta Anayat Masih. A petition was initially filed by Masih against the diocese,challenging his termination of service. The management (diocese) was proceeded ex-parte and the Labour Court pronounced the order in favour of Masih.

Aggrieved,the management moved the High Court in which the issue of whether an evangelist is a workman or not was raised.