JUDGMENT : M.S. Deshpande, J.- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nagpur on 16th June, 1980 holding that the termination of the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner was bad in law and that he was entitled to be reinstated forthwith and holding him to be entitled to the back wages at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from October 1975 upto the date of reinstatement. 2. On a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur u/s 10(1)(c) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, when the matter came up before the First Labour Court, written statement came to be filed by the petitioner - employer urging that it was not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, nor was it running any industry as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the respondent No. 2 was not a 'workman' and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply. 3. No evidence came to have been adduced before the First Labour Court on this point on behalf of respondent No. 2 to show that the petitioner was an 'industry' and all that was observed on this point by the First Labour Court in its award was as follows : "The Gram Panchayat is a local body, and by employment of staff in an organised manner material services are rendered to the society at large in the village. If the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable, then I am sure, the State Government would not have made this reference to the Court. The preliminary objection raised by the party No. 1 is rejected". To challenge the direction of the Labour Court, the petitioner averred in para 2 of the petition that the respondent No. 2 was the only employee with the petitioner and from about 25th May, 1969 he was initially engaged on a salary of Rs. 20 per month as a Peon and sub-sequently additionally as a Pound Keeper till 25th May, 1975 when his salary was increased to Rs. 35 per month, which was further revised in about August 1975 to Rs. 45 and was continued till the termination of the respondent No. 2 from the services effected by notice dated 15th October, 1975 with effect from 30th October, 1975. 35 per month, which was further revised in about August 1975 to Rs. 45 and was continued till the termination of the respondent No. 2 from the services effected by notice dated 15th October, 1975 with effect from 30th October, 1975. The respondent No. 2 has not filed any return, though he was represented by an advocate, denying this averment and there is nothing in the return filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which would amount to denial of the factual position stated in para 2 of the petition. It is clear that there was no material before the respondent No. 1 to reach the conclusion that the petitioner was an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Shri R. B. Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the decision in Gram Panchayat, Sawargaon v. Jamnaprasad Raghunath Prasad and others, (1968-I-LLJ-222) where while dealing with the case of a Pound-Keeper maintained by the Village Panchayat under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the Division Bench of this Court held that the activity of maintaining the cattle pound is one of the essential Governmental functions of the State being intimately connected with the maintenance of law and order. Even the Village Panchayat is statutorily required to undertake some of the Governmental functions and to that extent it would not be possible to hold that the activities in respect of those functions are activities amounting to an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of the Pound-keeper was therefore, not tenable. However, in view of the position of law as it stands at present, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, merely because it is Governmental activity, the matter would not be taken out of the realm of 'industry' as understood under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A triple test laid down in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case, (supra) have to be fulfilled and it is observed in para. 131 as under (pp. 404-405) : "A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-operatives and even gurukulas and little research labs, may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures, substantially and, going by the dominant nature criterion, substantively, matters, marginal employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the unit". 131 as under (pp. 404-405) : "A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-operatives and even gurukulas and little research labs, may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures, substantially and, going by the dominant nature criterion, substantively, matters, marginal employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the unit". The triple tests mentioned being : "(a) where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employees (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss, i.e. making on a large scale prasad or food) prima facie, there is an 'industry' in that enterprise". 5. In the present case, if we are to go by the material on record and the petitioner's averments, the respondent No. 2 was a marginal employee hired to attend certain minimal matters that will not destroy the non-employer character of the Organisation. This was the view taken also in Raj Ratna Seth v. Ashok Bhasin and others 1982 L.I.C. 338 and P. Jose v. The Director, Central Institute of Fisheries and another (1968 L.I.C. 1564) 6. In the result, the award passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur cannot be sustained and it is quashed. Rule made absolute in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.