The principle of 'employer-employee relationship' arising from state assumption of temple control is argued to trigger obligations under the Code on Wages, 2019. Analyse the legal and governance implications.

Q. The principle of 'employer-employee relationship' arising from state assumption of temple control is argued to trigger obligations under the Code on Wages, 2019. Analyse the legal and governance implications. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019 covers persons employed by an establishment for "hire or reward" [1]. The PIL's claim is that once the State takes over temple administration and revenue, it becomes the employer of priests and sevadars — a legally arguable proposition, but one whose remedy lies more in governance reform than in writ jurisdiction.

The legal dimension: how far does the claim hold? - Statutory trigger: If priests qualify as 'employees', the Code's guarantees — floor wage, timely payment, bonus, equal remuneration (it merges four earlier laws) — extend to temple establishments [1][2]. The unsettled question is whether dakshina/honorarium amounts to "hire or reward" [1]. - Constitutional support: Article 21 includes the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985); sub-subsistence honoraria are challenged on that basis, with Article 14 invoked against differential treatment of religious functionaries [3]. - No religious-freedom bar: Article 25(2)(a) permits state regulation of secular activity associated with religion, and Commissioner, HRE Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954) separates protected religious practice from regulable secular management — wage-setting falls in the latter [3]. - Remedial limit: The Supreme Court declined the Article 32 plea as not maintainable, directing aggrieved persons to the appropriate forum [4] — status must be proved on evidence, employment-by-employment.

The governance dimension - Federal gap: Religious endowments fall under Entry 28, List II; wages need state notification under laws like the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 [5], while the Code is centrally framed — an implementation vacuum. - Fiscal accountability: States control hundi and endowment income; recognising employee status converts discretionary honoraria into an enforceable charge on temple funds. - Administrative clarity: Requires cadre rules and service records, and a clear line between state-managed temples and autonomous mutts and private trusts [5].

The controversy is less about constitutional silence than about institutional design. A state-level expert committee under each endowments department, aligning HR&CE service rules with the Code's floor-wage principle, would secure Article 21 dignity for temple staff while respecting the federal balance — vindicating regulation of the secular without intruding on the sacred.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Code on Wages, 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019) — India Code, Ministry of Law & Justice — Section 2(k) 'employee' definition, "hire or reward" 2. The Code on Wages, 2019 — Bill Track — PRS Legislative Research — consolidation of four wage laws; scope of guarantees 3. The Constitution of India — India Code — Articles 14, 21, 25(2)(a), 26; Seventh Schedule 4. PIL plea in SC seeks review of wages of priests, temple staff — The Hindu, 11 May 2026, p.6 (print edition; no verifiable online link) — Supreme Court declining the Article 32 petition as not maintainable 5. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — India Code — state control of temple administration and staff; scope excluding private trusts