After Noting Some Temple Cooks Earn ₹400 A Month, Madras HC Orders A Living Wage For Tamil Nadu HR&CE Temple Staff

The petitioner sought a mandamus requiring the State and the HR&CE Commissioner to ensure that archakas and other temple employees across Tamil Nadu receive at least minimum wages and remuneration on par with Government servants, irrespective of the income of individual temples

The petition relied on a 2021 Division Bench direction that temple staff wages and service benefits be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and on par with Government servants; review applications were dismissed in 2023, with the Court affirming the applicability of minimum-wage protections to temple employees

The respondents had not implemented those directions, and the Court noted that they had not been stayed or set aside

The petitioner had also obtained an order in an earlier writ petition, but its operation was stayed pending appeal; the Court held that this did not bar the present petition seeking enforcement of the separate Division Bench directions

Article 226 empowers the High Court to provide relief where injustice is shown, including through a fresh writ petition seeking enforcement of an earlier writ direction; the Court referred to Foundever CRM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Bibekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal on maintainability

The Court relied on the Minimum Wages Act and the 2023 review order, which held that minimum-wage protections apply to temple employees and that temple income arrangements cannot justify denying those protections

It also invoked Articles 21 and 23, reasoning that livelihood and protection against forced labour are implicated where remuneration is grossly inadequate, and Article 43’s principle of a living wage

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that labour provided for less than the minimum wage may fall within “forced labour” under Article 23

The Court found that the earlier directions concerning temple employees’ wages remained operative and had not been complied with, so a fresh Article 226 petition to secure their implementation was maintainable

It considered the very low pay received by some temple staff incompatible with a decent livelihood and noted that linking wages solely to an individual temple’s income could infringe Articles 21 and 23

Although the petition sought statutory minimum wages and parity with Government servants, the Court declined to prescribe payment of the statutory minimum wage in this proceeding because of the financial implications and the differing duties and working arrangements of temple staff.

It instead held that the Department must develop a case-specific system capable of providing a living wage, and identified possible funding and revenue measures

The Court directed the respondents to ensure payment of a living wage to every staff member working in public temples under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department and directed the HR&CE Commissioner to submit an Action-Taken Report within two months

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed