JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This case is covered by a decision of Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court page 549. 2. The petition is directed against an order rejection the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner to the effect that Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute referred to it for adjudication by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The objection raised before the Tribunal was that the concerned workmen were public servants within the Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 and consequently, the dispute could be adjudicated only by a Tribunal constituted under the said Act. 3. The facts relevant for determination of the above controversy lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner is a Municipal Board and the concerned workmen were its employees. The later were aggrieved by an order passed by the Municipal Board terminating the services of these employees on the ground of alleged misconduct. The workmen appear to have approached the State Government which referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Meerut. Before the Tribunal in its written statement the Municipal Board took the plea that the workmen were public servants and consequently the dispute raised by them could be adjudicated only by a Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act. As already observed, the Tribunal overruled this objection by means of an order which is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that concerned workmen were public served and that the Municipal Board is not an industry as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 5. In my opinion, the fact that the concerned workmen were employees of the Municipal Board was not conclusive of the controversy. In order to consider the question whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute referred to it, what was required to be considered was whether the concerned employees were workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the Municipal Board was an industry. The question whether the employees were workmen or not presents no difficulty as the petitioner did not challenge before the Tribunal and indeed even before this Court that the said employees were workmen within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The question whether the employees were workmen or not presents no difficulty as the petitioner did not challenge before the Tribunal and indeed even before this Court that the said employees were workmen within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The question which, therefore, remains to be considered is whether the Municipal Board is an industry. This question, in my opinion, stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra). There the question was whether Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board was an industry. After analysing the law on the subject as regards the true import of the term industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, their Lordships concluded that the said Board was an industry. In support the Supreme Court relied on the decision in AIR 1960 Supreme Court page 675. In the latter case the question was whether the Education department of the Nagpur Corporation was an industry. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative. 6. It is unnecessary to burden this decision with the citation of numerous other authorities some of which were noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) which fully support the conclusion that the Municipal Board was an Industry within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and, consequently, the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate their dispute referred to it by the State Government. 7. The same conclusion is reached if we refer to clause (c) of Section 1 (4) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. It states that except Sections 2 and 6, the remaining provisions of the Act shall not apply to workmen as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Undisputedly, the concerned employees are workmen. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that even if the employees were public servants, the case would not be taken out of the purview of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 8. There is, thus, no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs. Needless to add that the interim order passed by this Court stands discharged. 9. It may be mentioned that the dispute was referred sometime in the year 1977 and on account of the pendency of the writ petition the case has not made any progress. There is, thus, no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs. Needless to add that the interim order passed by this Court stands discharged. 9. It may be mentioned that the dispute was referred sometime in the year 1977 and on account of the pendency of the writ petition the case has not made any progress. The Tribunal shall, therefore, dispose of the adjudication case expeditiously giving to it a high priority.