JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule was obtained by the State of West Bengal and it is directed against an award of the 8th Industrial Tribunal holding that the reference made by the petitioner under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not maintainable and the said. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case. The facts that lie in a short compass may be stated as follows : 2. AN industrial dispute arose between the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with regard to the termination of service of the opposite party No. 4- Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, a mechanic under opposite party No. 2 company, without serving any notice or cause. The said workman had been serving the opposite party No. 2 company continuously about nine years. The respondent No. 3 - The Union-challenged the illegal and wrongful termination of service of the said opposite party No. 4 before the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal and sought for its intervention. As the conciliation failed, on the 20th April, 1968, the State Government made a reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute between M/s. Britania Talking Machine Company and their workmen to the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for adjudication on the following issues : "whether the termination of employment of the opposite party No. 4. Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, is justified ? What relief, if any, is he entitled to ?'' At the time of hearing, before the Tribunals, a preliminary point was raised that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the issue in question referred to by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tribunal made an award dated 15th April, 1969, rejecting the said reference upon the view that it was not maintainable as there was no industrial dispute. The Tribunal further held that the company in question was a "shop" within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, and it was not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case. 3. BEING aggrieved against the said order, the State of West Bengal moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. 4. MR. 3. BEING aggrieved against the said order, the State of West Bengal moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. 4. MR. Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction in holding that the basis of the company is a shop within the meaning of section 2 (13) of Act XIII of 1963 and not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The industry has been defined under section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The definition is both exhaustive and inclusive and is very comprehensive in scope. It is in two parts : one part defines it from the standpoint of the employer; the other from the standpoint of the employee. By the second part of the definition avocation of workmen included in the concept of an industry, if the activity can be described as an "industry" with reference to the occupation of the employees (vide, (1) Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union v. Gymkhana Club (1967) 2 L. L. J. 720. The company carries on the business of selling and repairing of the radios and gramophones in its shop. The opposite party No. 4 is a mechanic. Repairing of gramophones and radios is his avocation. So from the standpoint of view of the employee and with reference to the occupation of the employee his activity falls in the last part of the definition. In my view, the tribunal failed to consider the second part of the definition of "industry". 5. MR. Chakraborty next contended that the tribunal acted illegally in holding that as the instant case was covered by the provision of West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, the Industrial Disputes Act has got no application and accordingly, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference. 6. IN the instant case the services of the workman had been illegally terminated. Under section 15 of the Act XIII of 1963, a dismissed employee can claim compensation for his wrongful termination. But the authority under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act has got no jurisdiction to decide whether the services of an employee have been rightly or wrongfully terminated. The employee also cannot claim reinstatement or payment of retrenchment compensation which he can claim only upon an adjudication under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But the authority under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act has got no jurisdiction to decide whether the services of an employee have been rightly or wrongfully terminated. The employee also cannot claim reinstatement or payment of retrenchment compensation which he can claim only upon an adjudication under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being so, it cannot be said that the Act xiii of 1963 is a complete code, in itself, giving to an employee, all the reliefs which he can get by an award given on a reference made under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So, in ray opinion, section 15 of the Act XIII of 1963 does not take away the powers of the State Government to make a reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is in no way affected in view of the provisions of section 24 of the Act XIII of 1963 wherein it has been stated that nothing in this Act means that Act XIII of 1963, shall affect any right or privilege to which any person employed in any shop or establishment is entitled on the date of the commencement of this Act under any law for the time being in force. The workman was employed on the 9th of November, 1938. The Act XIII of 1963 came into force on the 15th of August, 1964, so the workman's right under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not been affected by the enactment of Act XIII of 1963. In the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order and the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for fresh determination of the reference made by the petitioner by its order dated 20th April, 1968, and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to costs.