ORDER C.P. Sen, J. 1. By this Order, M.P. Nos. 578/80, 415/81, 416/81, 417/81, 517/81 and 519/81 are also disposed of. In all those petitions the question is whether family members of deceased municipal employee are entitled to ex gratia payment or not and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on behalf of dependent of the ex-employee. 2. The petitioner Municipal, Council Damoh, is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. In accordance with the provsions of Section 328 of the Act, the Council is under dissolution and Administrator was appointed by the State Government to perform the powers and duties of the Council. A demand was made by the employees of the Municipal Council through their union to make provisions for ex-gratia payment to the families of municipal employees who dies while in service as has been done by the State Government to its employees as per Circular dated 14-11-1972. The Circular provided ex-gratis payment to the family members equal to six month's salary subject to minimum of Rs. 2500/- and maximum of Rs. 12,000/-. As a result of discussion and negotiations between the Council and the union of the employees, a decision was arrived at to obtain sanction of the State Government in that behalf. The State Government by its letter dated 5-3-1974 informed the Municipal Council that it had no objection to the implementation of the scheme of ex-gratia payment as per Government Circular dated 14-11-1972 to the municipal employees but it was made clear that ex-gratia payment should be introduced in the Council keeping in view its financial position and without expecting any grant for the same from the Government. As a result of the above communication, the Municipal Council and union of the emlpoyees entered into an agreement dated 26-2-1979 that the Council and the employees should move the State Government to relax the condition that the establishment expenses of the Municipal Council should not exceed 50% of its income so that the c'leme of ex-gratia payment may be implemented by the Council not depending on the soundness of the financial condition of the Council. Deviprasad, husband of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 576/80, who was working as driver in the Municipal Council died on 18-11-1979. Babbu, father of respondent no. Deviprasad, husband of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 576/80, who was working as driver in the Municipal Council died on 18-11-1979. Babbu, father of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 578/80, who was working as sweeper in the Municipal Council, died on 24-4-75, and mother of respondent no. 2 who was also working as Sweeper in the Council died on 10-9-1977. Ganesh Prasad, father of respondents 2 & 3 in M.P. No. 415/81, who was working as Octroi Moharir in the Municipal Council, died on 15-11-1977. Shashi, husband of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 416/81, who was working as a Sweeper in the Municipal Council died on 23-3-1979. Babulal, husband of respondent on. 2 in M.P. No. 417/81, who was working as a driver in Municipal Council died on 1-6-1980. Laxmichand, father of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 517/ 1981, was working as a Moharir in the Council and he died on 13-4-1974. Gayaprasad, husband of respondent no. 2 in M.P. No. 519/81, who was working as a Ward Supervisor in Municipil Council died on 29-9-1975. On the death of these aforesaid employees, their family members applied for ex-gratia payment of Rs, 2500/- on the basis of the State Government Circular dated 14-11-1972. Since the Municipal Council had decided as of policy not to grint ex-gratia payment without the sanction of the State Government, the applications were rejected. Thereafter these family members filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking payment of the amount as per agreement entered into with the Municipal Council on 26-2-1979, The applications were opposed by the Municipal Council saying that in the absence of any final and binding agreement regarding the ex-gratia payment, the agreement dated 26-2-1979 cannot be enforced. The Municipal Council and the union of the employees had moved the State Government for relaxation of the condition about its not exceeding establishment expenses to 5t% of its income. Since the condition has not been relaxed, the Municipal Council is not bound to make any ex-gratia payment to the dependents of the employees. Otherwise also, the Municipal Council is not an industry and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted and so the applications under Section 33-C(2) were not competent. Since the condition has not been relaxed, the Municipal Council is not bound to make any ex-gratia payment to the dependents of the employees. Otherwise also, the Municipal Council is not an industry and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted and so the applications under Section 33-C(2) were not competent. Overruling the objections, the Labour Court held that the employees of the Municipal Council are covered under Industrial Disputes Act, the applications under Section 33-C(2) were maintainable and as per agreement dated 26-2-1979 the Municipal Council is bound to make ex-gratia payment to the family members of the Municipal employees who died during service. 3. The contention of the petitioner-Municipal Council that it is not, an industry and its employees are not covered under Industrial Disputes Act is without any merit The nutter is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 ., that definition of 'Industry' as defined in S. 2(j) of the Act has a wide import. Where there is (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee, (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious) prima-facie is an industry. Therefore, the Municipal employees are covered under Industrial Disputes Act. The next contention that the applications u/S. 33-C(2) were not maintainable at the instance of the family members of the deceased employees has also no merit. The Supreme Court in Nasor Ali v. C.I.W.T. Corpn AIR 1978 SC 275 ., has held that where workman is claiming benefit under certain settlement, application under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable. The application could not be rejected on the ground that there is no dispute about money due. However, regarding the last contention of the Municipal Council that under the agreement dated 26-2-1979 the Municipal Council is not bound to make ex-gratia payment to the family members of the Municipal employees who died while in service so long as ban imposed by the State Government on the Municipal Council not to exceed establishment expenses beyond 50% of its income is relaxed, the contention has much force and deserves to be accepted. The Municipal Council tentatively agreed to make ex-gratia payment to its employees but this was subject to the Municipal Council and the union of the employees approaching the State Government to relax the aforesaid condition and permit implementation of the scheme without making it dependent on the soundness of the financial condition of the Municipal Council. Admittedly, the State Government has not relaxed the aforesaid condition about the limit of the establishment expenses. So in the absence of the relaxation, no binding and enforceable agreement came into force. As such, the labour Court v,as in error in allowing the applications under Section 33-C(2) by directing ex-gratia payment to the family members of the employees. 4. With the result, these petitions are allowed, the impugned orders of the Labour Court ere quashed and the applications under Section 33-C(2) filed by dependents of the deceased employees are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioner.