Panchayat vs panthaky

The rights of trustees of a fire temple versus the priests they appoint/employ is often a contentious matter. The issue cropped up at the executive council meeting of the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India on September 5 and 6, 2009 when Hoshang Wania, president of the Nargol Parsi Jarthosti Anjuman, alleged that the Ahmedabad Parsi Panchayat (APP) did not pay the medical expenses of the Seth Navroji and Jehangir Pestonji Vakil Daremeher panthaky and instead served him a notice terminating his employment.

On inquiring with APP trustee Navroze Kanga we were informed that Ervad Kersi S. Karkaria had filed a case against the trustees in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court as well as made police complaints against them. As the matter was sub judice, Kanga and APP president Kersi Shethna expressed their inability to respond to the charges and counseled us to await the order of Judge M. M. Parmar.

Looking at the documentary evidence (police complaint and correspondence with concerned departments) produced by the plaintiff (Karkaria), on November 26, 2009 Parmar ruled against Karkaria stating that his acts suggested "misbehavior of the plaintiff to the religious institution.” He further added that the defendants (APP trustees) have reason to terminate his service as per clause 10 of the agreement which clearly states that "either party can leave or terminate the service by giving notice for (a) period of 90 days.” According to Parmar, the panthaky’s service could not be construed as falling under an act of statute but being in the nature of private service the defendants had the right to terminate his service. Parmar observed that the defendants were not satisfied with the behavior and conduct of the plaintiff and by passing a resolution had terminated his service.

The judge also noted that the trustees’ advocate N. R. Patel had told the court they "shall not take forcible possession of the residential premises allotted to the plaintiff without adopting due process of law.” The judge therefore vacated an earlier ex parte ad interim injunction preventing the trustees from repossessing the premises.

Genesis

Karkaria’s lawyer V. H. Dixit argued that his client had been appointed a panthaky effective June 1, 2005, as per the appointment order dated April 14, 2005. Karkaria maintained he was performing his religious duties and that medical and educational expenses were payable to him. Despite performing "his duties/services very honestly (the) defendants have started harassment, mental torture, insulting and discredit in the Parsi community,” he added. Due to such mental torture, the plaintiff had to suffer heart trouble and was admitted in the Siddhi Vinayak Hospital at Maninagar, it was alleged. When he presented his medical bills for Rs 25,000, instead of reimbursing the entire medical expenses the trustees had given a cheque for Rs 10,000 which was not accepted by him. It was further alleged that the defendants had arranged a meeting dated August 26, 2009 when a resolution was passed to terminate Karkaria’s services. The plaintiff submitted that the order of termination of service was passed "without sufficient opportunity to be heard and… with mala fide intention to terminate service within 90 days from the date of such order.”

The trustees responded that the appointment letter "is an agreement containing terms and conditions” and contended that the agreement was "terminable as per the provisions of Section 14 (I) (C) of the Specific Relief Act... therefore, plaintiff is not entitled any relief in the suit plaint as well as injunction application.”

The defendants also denied they caused Karkaria "mental torture, harassment and disrespect” due to which he was admitted in the Siddhi Vinayak Hospital as alleged. They contended that the plaintiff had committed breach of duties, did not follow instructions, nor improve his behavior. Left with no other alternative, a meeting was called on August 26, 2009 and an "order of termination of plaintiff’s service was passed,” the defendants argued.

On going through (the) entire correspondence produced by the plaintiff, Parmar observed that the plaintiff was "not being insulted by trustees.” The defendants’ letter clearly indicates that the trustees were directing him "to perform religious duties” which cannot be construed as an insult. It transpires that the "first medical bill was paid” and the second medical bill presented after the filing of the suit, subsequent to the 90-day notice for termination of service, was "not payable” according to the defendants.

For any outstanding bills or salary, the plaintiff can file a suit to recover the outstanding amount, noted Parmar, but the issue before the judge was to determine whether the priest’s service was legally terminated. The judge ruled the termination legal.