B. L. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Maghar, a charitable institution registered under the societies Registration Act 29 of 1860 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution with the prayer to quash impugned award dated 28. 1. 1986 passed by the Labour court. Under the impugned award Respondent No. 3 who was salesman of petitioner has been directed to be reinstated with all service emoluments. ( 2 ) THE object of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Maghar (for short Gandhi Ashram) is to serve public on the preachings of Mahatma Gandhi which includes production of Handloom cloths and production through Small Scale Industries of materials of domestic use helpful in agriculture, social service and Sarvodaya Movement. The service conditions of employees of Gandhi ashram are governed under the Ashram Service Rules, 1972 (for short the Rules ). The respondent No. 3 was salesman in Gandhi Ashram. He was suspended on 10. 6. 74 and charge sheet was served on 14. 7. 74. Then domestic enquiry was held and thereafter another chargesheet was issued containing 17 charges and again enquiry was held. Ultimately by order dated 2. 2. 80 respondent No. 3, was removed from service. He filed civil suit No. 31 of 1975 which was dismissed by the order dated 31. 10. 78 on the ground that as the employment of the plaintiff, (Respondent No. 3 in the petition) with the defendant, (petitioner in the present petition), was in fact a service contract and to enforce the same injunction cannot be granted. Thereafter reference was made under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) and the impugned award has been passed by the Labour Court against which present petition has been filed. Mr. H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that impugned award is liable to be set aside as the Ashram was not an industry within the meaning of Section 2-K of the Act and the order passed in the civil suit would operate as res judicata. He further urged that no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court about the illegalities or irregularities in the orders of suspension and removal, therefore, award is bad in law. Reliance was placed on Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 969. ( 3 ) MR. He further urged that no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court about the illegalities or irregularities in the orders of suspension and removal, therefore, award is bad in law. Reliance was placed on Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 969. ( 3 ) MR. Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand urged that impugned award deserves to be confirmed as Gandhi Ashram was an industry within the meaning of Section 2-K of the Act and the order passed in the civil suit would not operate as res judicata because the same is not an order passed on merits rather just injunction was refused on the ground that contractual obligations pertaining to the service cannot be enforced in a suit for injunction. He further urged that while discussing issues No. 5 and 6 findings have been recorded in the award that enquiries held in respect of suspension and retrenchment were not fair and proper and as such no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made out. ( 4 ) AS regards the first point as to whether Gandhi Ashram was an Industry within the meaning of section 2 (K) of the Act, the case Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, 1978 (36) FLR 266 (SC) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is very relevant. Entire case law has been discussed. On page 586 in para 130 of the Judgment of Honble M. H. Beg. C. J. It has been held while considering whether Gandhi Ashram can be an industry as follows: "if cotton or yarn is given free to workers. If charkhas are made available free for families, if fair price is paid for the net product and substantially charity thus benefits the spinners, weavers and other handicraftsmen, one may have to look into character of enterprises. If employees are hired and their services are rewarded by the wages whether on cottage industry or factory based, the enterprises become industry, even if some kind of concession is shown and even if the motive and object may be to encourage and help poor families and find them employment". If employees are hired and their services are rewarded by the wages whether on cottage industry or factory based, the enterprises become industry, even if some kind of concession is shown and even if the motive and object may be to encourage and help poor families and find them employment". ( 5 ) IN the present case there is no denying the fact that wages are paid by Gandhi Ashram to its employees consequently there is no escape from the conclusion that the Gandhi Ashram was an industry under Section 2-K (two-k) of the Act. ( 6 ) AS regards the point as whether the decision in suit would operate as res-judicata, suffice it to say that nature of the dispute under the Act is clearly different and the provisions of Code of civil Procedure particularly that of Section 11 do not apply to the Act. In the present case, the respondent No. 3 had filed civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioner in present case) from, terminating the services of the plaintiff (the Respondent No. 3 in the present case) and to treat him under the service but the civil suit was dismissed only on the ground that contractual obligations of service cannot be enforced in a suit for permanent injunction, and it was held that in domestic enquiry no reasonable opportunity of hearing afforded to the plaintiff and principle of natural justice were not followed therefore, in this view of the matter, decision in civil suit would not operate as res-judicata. ( 7 ) SO far as the next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was concerned that in the impugned award no findings have been recorded by the Labour Court about the illegalities or irregularities in the orders of suspension and removal, suffice it to say that while discussing the issues No. 5 and 6 on page 17 of the paper book it has been clearly held by the Labour Court that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper therefore this issue was also decided in favour of respondent No. 3 thereafter employer was given opportunity to lead evidence to prove this charges but after considering the evidence led by the employer, Labour Court held that charges were not proved. ( 8 ) AS regards the point that after suspension and retrenchment, the Respondents No. 3 was employed in Bhartiya Kisan Sewa Sansthan, petitioner was directed to file appointment letter to show that Respondent No. 3 was employed but no appointment letter has been filed. However a letter dated 12. 10. 85 of Secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Sewa Sansthan has been riled as Annexure 6 to the writ petition in which there is a reference that Respondent No. 3 has gone to Kshetriya gandhi Ashram as a representative of Bhartiya Kisan Sewa Sansthan. The term representative is so comprehensive that it certainly does not cannote employee and in the absence of any other reference to indicate that the Respondent No. 3 was employee of Bhartiya Kisan Sewa Sansthan, there is no option but to infer that Respondent No. 3 was not in employment after his suspension and retrenchment anywhere else. ( 9 ) IN view of the premises aforesaid writ petition lacks merits consequently dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .