(1) WP. 1827.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2010 Kisanrao S/o Nanasaheb Deshmukh and anr. .. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. J.S. Gavane, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP. for the respondent no.1-State Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 10TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Latur on a preliminary issue and which is confirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.113 of 2009. The petitioners objected jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 was not a workman. It was further alleged that the work of the respondent no.2-Bandu was of supervisory nature and that the hostel activity of the educational institution was of (2) WP. 1827.2010 charitable nature. Preliminary issue was framed by the Labour Court as follows:- . “Whether the complaint is maintainable and this Court is having jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint?” The Labour Court answered the issue in the affirmative. 3] Counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the petitioners were not running the hostel as part of the educational activity and nothing was being charged to the students, the employment of the respondent no.2-Bandu could not be treated as that of workman. It is contended that running of the hostel does not amount to any activity akin to the activities of industry. It is contended that since the hostel is not an industry, the respondent no.2- Bandu cannot be termed as workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4] The respondent no.2 was being paid monthly honorarium of Rs.3000/- per month. The nature of his duties do not show that he was required to supervise the work of any other employee though he was termed as “Superintendent of the Hostel” yet his functions were basically like that of a workman. He was not required to do any administrative work. He could not be termed as a person dealing in administrative and (3) WP. 1827.2010 supervisory work. Though the hostel was meant to provide free accommodation to the students yet it cannot be treated as an independent charitable institution. Considering the ratio laid down in "The President, Andha Mahila Ashram Vs. Smt. J.G. Ajagaonkar 1996 (4) Bom.C.R. 480" and "All Saints Home Vs. Chhaya P. Pardeshi and anr. 2001 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 727". It is difficult to say that the hostel activity was segregated from the institution as such. It is therefore, industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5] The impugned order is therefore well reasoned and sustainable. No merit. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp