Ramachandra Ayyar, J. (As he then was), held that the Madras Pinjrapole was not an "industry" within the meaning of S.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, namely,

"any business, trade undertaking, manufacture of calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen" *

the institution not being an "industry" within the definition it followed that the reference by the State Government of the alleged industrial dispute between the Madras Pinjrapole and its workmen, under S. 10(1)(c), for adjudication to the labour court, was incompetent. The petition before the learned Judge was by the Madras Pinjrapole under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ prohibiting the presiding officers, labour court, Madras, from proceedings with the enquiry. The learned Judge quashed the order of the labour court, which held that it had jurisdiction, and directed the issues of writ of certiorari. The present appeal is from this judgment.

It is important to note, at the very outset, that there was no sufficient material before the labour court, enabling a satisfactory decision upon the main issue of fact, whether the Madras Pinjrapole was "industry" within the meaning of the definition, earlier set forth by us. The learned Judge explicitly finds this, and this deficiency seems to have been practically conceded by learned counsel upon both sides. Before the learned Judge (Ramachandra Ayyar, J.) further material was adduced, in the shape of affidavits furnishing particulars, and, as far as the petitioner-institution was concerned, of two documents, the first a copy of the Golden Jubilee souvenir, and the second a similar copy of the proceedings of a committee meeting held on 13 April, 1958. The affidavit of the petitioner-institution was followed by a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of the workers and again by a reply affidavit on behalf of the institution. It is upon this additional material, not before the labour court, that the learned Judge largely rested his decision.The judgment contains a history of this institution, and it is unnecessary, for our present purpose, to duplicate it here. But certain salient facts concerning the development of this institution are essential and deserve notice. As stated by Mr. Justice Boddam when the foundation-stone of the Madras Pinjrapole was laid, the institution was an offshoot of the inefficient activities of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (S.P.C.A.) but with a distinct purpose of its own. The idea of the Pinjrapole was that a place should be established in Madras

"where all non-carnivorous animals may be taken in and kept to live out to remainder of their lives in peace and without labour, until in the natural order of things they die a natural death." *

In other words, the object was not merely purely humanitarian; it was really the fulfillment of a religious sentiment felt by many Hindus, particularly of an orthodox persuasion. The central idea was to save from this butcher's knife, or from sales to butchers, those old and infirm cattle, those dry or barren cows, the maintenance of which by the owners had become uneconomic and a burden.

But there can be no doubt whatever that, as the activities of this institution expanded, subsidiary activities which had definite economic objectives, were also included within the scope of the institution. Thus the dicta of the learned Judge (Ramachandra Ayyar, J.) are sustained by the record that, broadly speaking

"there is no element of trade or business involved in the various activities of the society. It cannot even be said that the activities in question are in any way analogous to a trade or business." *

These observations, however, do not extend to subsequent developments, the result of the growth of the institution, and its attempt to achieve self-sufficiency. There were(1) purchase and sa