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