1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 929 OF 2009 The Mahalaxmi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s.. Angoori Dilip Singh Parocha & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.R.V.Paranjpe for petitioners. Mr.P.M.Patel for Respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JUNE 17, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two points have been raised before this Court. The first contention is that the finding reached by the lower Court that the Petitioner-Society is an Industry is on the face of it untenable. Inasmuch as the factum of activities of the Society, which have been adverted to in paragraph-12 of the Judgment have not been proved by the Complainant 2 in his evidence. Besides, the documents referred to have not been adverted to at all by the complainant in his evidence. The argument clearly overlooks that the documents referred to by the lower Court in paragraph-12 which have come on record were marked as Exhibit without any objection of the Petitioner. Those documents were admitted by the Petitioner during the trial. The same are in the shape of balance sheet and receipts issued by the Petitioner itself. It is too late in the day for the Petitioner to now make grievance that the said documents cannot be looked into. Going by the said documents, the Lower Court has found that the same clearly indicates the activities of the society is of letting out its premises on charges for a marriage hall and of running a ration shop, which was an organised and systematic activity. Thus understood, the Petitioner fulfilled the requirement envisaged by the Apex Court to qualify as an Industry. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the finding so reached by the lower Court in the context of Issue No.2. 3. The next argument of the Petitioner is that in any case job performed by the Respondents was only an incidental one and not the main activity of the Petitioner society. The Respondents were engaged as sweepers. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of The Management of World University Service Centre v/s. The Commissioner of Labour and ors.reported in 1997 3 Lab.I.C.27. The observations in the said decision pressed into service are in the context of fact situation of that case. In that case, the Court found as of fact that the main object of the centre was advancement of education throughout the world and particularly in India. Incidentally, it was also running hostel and also an auditorium. The hostel rooms were let out mainly for students and teachers on concessional rates. The Conference Hall was let out to others only occasionally. After considering those facts, the Court proceeded to examine the plea of the workmen and to hold that the Centre was not an Industry. In the present case, as I see no reason to overturn the finding recorded by the lower Court that the Petitioner is an Industry, the argument of the Petitioner that the Respondents were engaged in incidental work and not for the main activities of the Petitioner Society and for which reason are not workmen cannot be countenanced. The Lower Court has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter to record a finding of fact that the Respondents were engaged by the Petitioner-Society as sweepers. That being finding of fact, no interference in exercise of Writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)