Judgment :- 1. The dispute between the Kerala Grandhasala Sanghom and the Kerala Grandhasala Sanghom Employees' Union has resulted in this writ petition, the question which falls for decision in this case being whether the Kerala Grandhasala Sanghom is an industry coming within the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, the second respondent, held in its award Ext. P-2, that the Sanghom is not an industry, which award is under attack in this writ petition brought at the instance of the Employees' Union. 2. The Kerala Grandhasala Sanghom is an institution registered under the Companies Act and the Sanghom is publishing a magazine "Grandhalokam". It has also started a printing press. There are 14 employees in the Central Office of the Sanghom. The petitioner-Union raised six demands which were considered by the Conciliation Officer. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings the management discharged one officer and reverted another. The conciliation having failed the matter was referred to the Tribunal which resulted in Ext. P-2 award. 3. According to the 1st respondent, the Sanghom is not an industry and the employees under it not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Sanghom is an association for promoting the literary and cultural standard of the citizens of the Kerala with no provisions whatsoever for making profit. It is a non-trading association established for the purpose of forming and promoting and popularising libraries and for the development of education. The Sanghom has no income of its own nor has it any endowments or resources to fall back upon for financial assistance except the grant sanctioned by the Kerala Government and to a small extent from the subscriptions from libraries. It was contended therefore that the Sanghom does not come within the expression'industry'. 4. A technical objection was taken by the Sanghom that the General Secretary of the Kerala Grandhasala Sanghom Employees' Union was the party to the award while the writ petition was filed by the Vice President and on that score the writ petition is not maintainable, This can be disposed of easily. This according to me is a hypertechnical plea. The dispute is between the Union and the management. It does not matter much who represents the Union. In this case at the time of reference the General Secretary represented the Union. This according to me is a hypertechnical plea. The dispute is between the Union and the management. It does not matter much who represents the Union. In this case at the time of reference the General Secretary represented the Union. He has been discharged and in his place the Vice President has filed this writ petition representing the Union. I do not think that the writ petition is bad on this account. 5. The main question to be decided is whether the Sanghom is an industry or not. The objects of the Sanghom have been detailed above in brief. One of the objects is contained in Clause.14 of the bye-laws, which reads: It is this clause which has been high-lighted by the Union to substantiate their case that the Sanghom engages itself in profit earning activities. The Sanghom has published 2 books, viz., "Nam Munnottu" and "Grandhasala Directory 1964". It is said that the Central Government had given a grant of Rs. 2,000 for publication of these books with a specific condition that no profit should be made from the sale of these books. But, in effect the books were sold and a substantial amount was earned by the Sanghom as profit and the grant given by the Central Government had to be repaid. This instance would indicate that the Sanghom has been publishing books and earning income. 6. The case of the Sanghom is that these were the only two books published by them since the Sanghom was formed. The Directory is only for reference to the libraries under the Sanghom and the book "Nam Munnottu" earned some profit by its sale. These facts by themselves will not turn the Sanghom into an association carrying on trade or activities earning profit. 7. This question has been the subject-matter of a series decisions, some of which were brought to my notice. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. State of Kerala 1963 (II) L.L J. 218 this Court took the view that the Maramat Department attached to the Travancore Devaswom Board was carrying on an activity which clearly came within the term'Industry' under S.2 0) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This decision was very strongly relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the principle enunciated therein has not been overruled so far. This decision was very strongly relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the principle enunciated therein has not been overruled so far. Though I do not agree that this decision has not been overruled, the principle in that case cannot be of any help to the petitioner because in that case it was only the Maramat Department that was held to be an industry. It is not the case of the petitioner in this writ petition that the press section is an industry. According to them, the entire Sanghom is an industry and the employees under it workmen. For the purpose of deciding this question the principle enunciated in the decision in 1963 (II) L.L.J. 218 cannot be pressed into service. 8. In the Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union v. Gymkhana Club 1962 (II) L.L.J. 720, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The cardinal test is to find out whether there is an industry according to the denotation of the word in the first part.. The second part will then show what will be included from the angle of employees. By the second part of the definition any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation of association of workmen is included in the concept of 'industry'. Principles so far settled come to this: Every human activity in which enters the relationship of employer and employees is not necessarily creative of an industry. It is clear that before the work engaged it can be described as an industry, it must bear the definite character of 'trade' or business or manufacture of calling or must be capable of being described as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material services. This must be done as a part of trade or business or as an undertaking analogous to trade or business. This element is completely missing in a members' club." In Cricket Club of India Ltd. v. Bombay Labour Union 1969 (1) LLJ. 775, the Supreme Court observes as follows: "Though the club is incorporated as a company, it is not like an ordinary company constituted for the purpose of carrying on business. There are no shareholders. No dividends are declared and no distribution of profits takes place. The club continues to be a members' club and all services provided in the club for members have to be treated as activities of a self-serving institution. There are no shareholders. No dividends are declared and no distribution of profits takes place. The club continues to be a members' club and all services provided in the club for members have to be treated as activities of a self-serving institution. The order of the tribunal holding that the club is an industry is incorrect and must be set aside." The Supreme Court held the Cricket Club of India is not an industry, notwithstanding the fact that it was a company incorporated under the Companies Act and was also making huge profits out of the cricket matches played at the Brabourne Stadium maintained by the club. In The Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi 1970 (II) LLJ. 266, the Supreme Court observed: "Before an industrial dispute as defined under S.2(k) is raised, the relationship of employers and employees must be first established, associating together, the former following trade, business manufacture, undertaking or calling of employers in the production of material goods and, material services and the latter following any calling, service, employment, handicrafts or industrial occupation or avocation or workmen in aid of the employers and enterprise which may or may not have profit motive but which is analogous to trade or business in a commercial sense." In Visakhapatanam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores' Association, Visakhapatanam 1970 (I) LLJ. 46 the Visakhapatanam Dock Labour Board was held not to be an industry. In The Director of Central Plantation Crops v. The Secretary, Government Thottom Thozhilali Union 1974 KLT 475 a Division Bench of this Court held that the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute whose main activity is research in producing the best varieties of hybrid coconut seedlings is not an industry. The main activity of the institute was the promotion and propagation of research in the matter of producing the best varieties of hybrid coconut seedlings. The production of seedlings by the institute and their distribution or sale for value was merely incidental to the main activity. It was therefore held that the enterprise carried on in the institute cannot be regarded as a business in a commercial sense. 9. Taking stock of the situation against the principles enunciated in these decisions, the position is that the activities of the Sanghom should be shown to be an enterprise analogous to a trade or business in a commercial sense. 9. Taking stock of the situation against the principles enunciated in these decisions, the position is that the activities of the Sanghom should be shown to be an enterprise analogous to a trade or business in a commercial sense. It cannot be said that the activities of the Sanghom are analogous to a trade or business in a commercial sense. Objects of promoting and popularising libraries and developing education, the mother-tongue and library activities in the State are not activities which can be said to be either a trade or a business. The sale of two books which earned a little profit cannot convert the activity by itself into either a trade or a business. In the Cricket Club of India's case the profit which the club made out of the cricket matches was not held to be sufficient for holding the club to be an industry. The situation would perhaps have been different if the employees of the Sanghom who raised the dispute were the employees in the press attached to the Sanghom and the subject-matter of the dispute related to the activities of the press alone. But here, as I observed above, it is the activities of the Sanghom as a whole that is the subject-matter of the reference and hence T find that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the Union that the Sanghom is an industry. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. I do not pass any. order as to costs. Dismissed.