DIVAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is a trust conducting the Arya Kanya Vidyalay Gurukul at Porbandar in Junagadh District. The petitioner trust has challenged reference made by the second respondent to the Labour Court Judge the third respondent herein or making any reference in respect of the failure report submitted by the first respondent to the third respondent who is the Conciliation Officer. The facts leading to this litigation are that the petitioner is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and one of the trustees has been authorised by all the trustees to file this Special Civil Application. The question posed in this Special Civil Application is whether a Gurukul run by the petitioner trust in an Ashramite Vedic atmosphere for females with an objective of equipping them for meaningful future fife is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the competent authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act have any jurisdiction to deal with and decide the disputes raised by the Saurashtra Mazdoor Sangh respondent No. 4 and/or to decide the cases lodged by respondent No. 4 Union against the petitioner-trust. It must be stated at this stage that though all the four respondents have been properly served none of them has appeared before us and the matter has proceeded in the absence of any affidavit or in the absence of any opposition from any of those respondents. According to the petitioner for fulfilling the objects of the trust it runs Arya Kanya Gurukul wherein education is imparted from St. V to Std. XII to female students without charging any fees upto Std. X and charging only enrollment fees term fees and craft fees in Std. XI and charging term fees craft fees and tuition fees in Std. XII. According to the petitioner in the Gurukul more than 700 female students receive instructions from Std. V to Std. XII ranging between the ages of 9 to 17 and all of them reside in the campus of the Gurukul. The petitioner does not admit any student in its school If she does not reside in the campus. The entire campus of Gurukul covers an area admeasuring more than 100 acres of land. The petitioner has constructed boarding houses for providing residential accommodation to the students studying in the school. The petitioner does not admit any student in its school If she does not reside in the campus. The entire campus of Gurukul covers an area admeasuring more than 100 acres of land. The petitioner has constructed boarding houses for providing residential accommodation to the students studying in the school. The boarding houses are known as Ashram Vibhag No. 1 and No. 2 wherein a homely atmosphere is given to the inmates. For looking after these students there is one Lady Superintendent known as Gruhmata and 12 female Assistants known as Sevikas. Inside Ashram Vibhags the entry of any male is strictly prohibited. With the help of Gruhmata and Sevikas the inmates carry out their day-to-day routine affairs. With a view to give good nourishing and homely food two kitchens are maintained and in these kitchens girls themselves serve the food and attend to the maintaining of discipline at the time of breakfast lunch and dinner and the girls also do the work of serving food cleansing their own utensils and arranging the utensils etc. Cooks are engaged to cook food for the young girls for whom it would be impossible to cook food for at least 1000 persons at a time. Similarly for cleansing all big utensils and for looking after the store etc. females are engaged as it would be impossible for the young girls of tender age to do that work. Some employees are also employed for keeping neat and clean the vast areas of Gurukul campus. The rooms are swept by the inmates them-selves. For looking after the health of the inmates there is a doctor and a permanent qualified nurse and a hospital ward in Gurukul campus. This background explains how the petitioner trust came to employ a fairly large number of employees for the purpose of attending to the needs of the inmates of the Gurukul. The petitioner trust also runs a College for women and this is called Gurukul Mahila College There are about 550 students out of whom 250 students are also inmates of the Gurukul. The petitioner trust also runs a College for women and this is called Gurukul Mahila College There are about 550 students out of whom 250 students are also inmates of the Gurukul. In all the kitchen section of the Gurukul a staff of 53 persons has been engaged and the cooks and the female helpers working in the kitchen are not only remunerated in cash for the services rendered by them as shown in Annexure B to the petition but they are also given cooked food for three persons in the morning and evening. They are also given three pairs of clothes every year and eighty percent of them are given free quarters with facilities of free light. Their daughters are also given free education in the institutions run by the petitioner. By a letter dated June 23. 1980 certain demands were raised by the respondent No. 4-Union. Thereafter the proceedings were started before the first respondent - the Conciliation Officer - and preliminary discussion as to whether the dispute should be admitted before the conciliation proceedings were to take place. The first respondent by his letter dated December 28 1980 admitted the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent for conciliation and issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to remain present in the conciliation proceedings on January 15 1981 and by the letter dated April 16 1981 the first respondent has submitted a failure report under Sec. 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the conciliation proceedings and this report has been submitted to the second respondent i. e. the State of Gujarat. ( 2 ) UNDER the Industrial Disputes Act ordinarily on the submission of a failure report by the Conciliation Officer the matter is considered by the State Government as to whether the dispute between the employer and the employee should be referred to adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As indicated above it has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition that the principal question is whether the Gurukul can be said to be an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The whole question was examined by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 S. C. 548. As indicated above it has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition that the principal question is whether the Gurukul can be said to be an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The whole question was examined by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 S. C. 548. In that case the majority decision was delivered by Krishna Iyer J. and he summarized the legal position as follows in paragraph 161 at page 595 of the report : Industry as defined in S. 2 (j) and explained in Banerji ( AIR 1953 SC 58 ) has a wide import. Then in paragraph III at page 596 it is observed :i. Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations. The ideology of the Act being industrial peace regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen the range of this statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition. Nothing less nothing more. (A) The consequences are (i) professions (ii) clubs (iii) educational institutions (iv) charitable cooperatives (v) research institutes (vi) charitable projects and (vii) other kindred adventures if they fulfil the triple tests listed in I (supra) cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2 (j ). (B) A restricted category of professions clubs cooperatives and even gurukul and little research labs may qualify for exemption if in simple ventures substantially and going by the dominant nature criterion substantively no employees are entertained but in minimal matters marginal employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the unit. (C) If in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves free for small honoraria or like return mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness divinity or like central personality and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship then the institution is not an industry even if stray servants manual or technical are hired. Such eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are exempt - not other generosity compassion developmental passion or project. ( 3 ) NOW in view of the fact that petitioner Gurukul is running a simple venture substantially and going by the dominant nature criterion substantively no employees are entertained but in minimal matters marginal employees are hired without destroying the nonemployee character of the unit would be exempt from the operation of the definition of the word industry as explained in this Judgment. It is obvious that wide though may be the sweep of the definition of the word industry yet institutions like the one before us would be exempt from the definition of the word industry because here we find that most of the work which is required for these Gurukuls is done by the students themselves barring heavy work of lifting heavy things cleaning big utensils sweeping vast area of campus etc. and in Gurukul more than 700 students in the school and 250 in the College serve themselves and also assist a great deal in keeping the premises clean and tidy. Under these circumstances since the employment of outside help i. e. help other than those of the students themselves is in minimal matters and the employees are marginal employees without destroying the non-employee character of the institution this particular institution falls squarely within the exception carved out in clause (b) of paragraph III at page 596 of the report. Since this is the view of the Supreme Court it is obvious that in the instant case the institution run by the petitioner trust cannot be said to be an industry within the meaning of the definition set out in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and hence the provision of conciliation machinery and still less the provision for an industrial Disputes Act would not apply to the employees of this particular Institution since this institution is not an industry within the definition of that word as explained in Bangalore Water Supplys case. ( 4 ) HENCE this Special Civil Application is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. Since the rule is made absolute the second respondent is restrained by an order of injunction of this Court from acting upon the report submitted to it by the first respondent. The third respondent is restrained from proceeding further with the reference made to it by the second respondent. Since the rule is made absolute the second respondent is restrained by an order of injunction of this Court from acting upon the report submitted to it by the first respondent. The third respondent is restrained from proceeding further with the reference made to it by the second respondent. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed. .