D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner M. P. Council for Child welfare, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as Council) is a society registered under the provisions of M. P. Societies Registration Act. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is challenging the order of the Labour Court Bhopal dated 3. 2. 1992 (Annexure-I) passed in exercise of powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby the respondent No. 2 is directed to be paid salary of the post of Upper Division clerk-cum-typist in the scale of Rs. 220-450 and arrears on the above basis from the date of his initial appointment. ( 2 ) THE case of the respondent No 2 before the Labour Court was that he was appointed on 22. 7. 1979 on the post of Upper Division Clerk-cum-Typist on a fixed salary of Rs 300/ per month. The salary of the above post as per the decision of the standing committee of the Council was Rs. 220-450/ -. A copy of the decision of the standing committee of the Council has been filed with the petition as Annexure-II. ( 3 ) THE claim set up in the Labour Court by the employee/respondent no. 2 is being opposed by the Council mainly on two grounds, which were also urged before the Labour Court. The first ground is that the Council is not an industry as defined in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the employee. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1991 Labour and Industrial cases 1385 (Hussen Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iran and Steel Labour Board and anr ). The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 . The learned counsel particularly laid emphasis on para graph 125-132 onwards of the said decision. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 . The learned counsel particularly laid emphasis on para graph 125-132 onwards of the said decision. The admission, in short, advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Council is constituted to co-operate and co-ordinate governmental functions of undertaking programmes and projects for welfare of children which is a directive principle of the State policy contained in article 39 (e) and Article 43 of the Constitution of India. The argument is that the Council is engaged only in doing some service to the community and is discharging sovereign functions of the State It is, therefore, excluded from the definition of the Industry under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial disputes Act ( 4 ) ON merits, the learned counsel for the Council submits that the scale of Rs 220-450 can be granted only to a U. D. C-cum-typist having graduate qualification. The petitioner was only a matriculate and, therefore, he was granted salary in the lower scale of pay of Rs. 170-380/ -. ( 5 ) LASTLY, it was also urged that claim could not be adjudicated under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the claim was in the nature of dispute which should have been referred under section 10 of the Act for adjudication by the appropriate Labour court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the employee (Respondent No. 2)placed reliance on AIR 1988 MP 146 (Mahila Samiti Tikamgarh v. State of m. P. and Others) and the decision of Patna High Court reported in 1979 vol. II LLJ 53 (Bihar Relief Committee v. State of Bihar and Ors.) The learned counsel for the employee also referred to certain passages from the judgment of the Bangalore Water Supply's case of the Supreme Court (supra) in support of his argument that any systematic activity with the object to provide material services to the community is covered by the wider definition of industry under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes act. ( 7 ) ON the merits of the case, the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the employee is that he having been appointed on the post of U. D C-cum-typist, the scale of pay fixed for that post could not be denied to him only on the ground that he was non-graduate. According to the learned counsel, the employee having been appointed on the post and discharged duties of the post should be paid the scale of pay of that post. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the employee also submits that the decision of the standing committee of the Council creates an existing right in favour of the employee to approach the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act. ( 9 ) ANSWER to the first question urged that the Council is not an 'industry' covered by Section 2 (j) of the I. D. Act, can be found in the case of Bangalore Water Supply's case of the Supreme Court (supra) The conclusions in that jddgment are in paragraph 161. A body which undertakes a systematic activity with the co-operation of the employer and employee even with sole aim to render services to the community, would be covered by the wider definition of 'industry', may be that there is no profit motive involved. The Council is constituted with the mam aim of safeguarding the physical and material needs of children in the society. It may have been constituted for fulfilling the directive principles of the State Policy contained in the Constitution of India, but, services of the Council are calculated to satisfy the 'human wants and wishes and for rendering material services to a class of community'. Irrespective of its charitable and philanthropic object, the Council would be covered within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it satisfies the triple test laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply's case (supra) The similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of mahila Samiti (supra) and by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar relief Committee (supra ). ( 10 ) THE Bombay decision (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable because there it has been found, on detailed examination of the Constitution and activities of Bombay Iron and Steel labour Board, that It is set up as an independent statutory authority to administer the law i e. the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hemal and other Manual workers (Regulations of employment and welfare) Act, 1969. The functions of the Board were held to be regal or governmental and, therefore, it was held to be excluded from the definition of Industry under Section 2 (j) of the i D. Act. ( 11 ) THE first contention advanced on behalf of the Council has to be rejected, The Council being an 'industry', the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. ( 12 ) SO far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is not denied by the Council that the employee was appointed on the post of U. D. C-cum-typist, under the resolution of the standing committee of the Council dated 10 8 1979 (Annexure II), a U. D. C.-cum-typist has to be given, the scale of pay of Rs. 220-450/- and the qualifications prescribed are graduate with typing in Hindi and English,the question is whether the employee being a non-graduate can be denied the scale of pay of Rs. 220-450/- prescribed for U. D-C -cum-typist the learned counsel for the Council urged that the claim was in the nature of an industrial dispute and fell outside the provisions of section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act under which only existing right can be enforced by way of execution of an award of settlement ( 13 ) THE contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has little substance. The decision of the standing committee of the Council which prescribed a particular scale of pay for the post of U. D. C-cum-typist confers an existing right on the holders of those posts. The denial of the pay-scale prescribed for the post in, contravention of the decision of the standing committee of the Council gave rise to an enforceable existing right which could be agitated in proceedings under Section 33-C of the act. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, the employee has not approached the Industrial court with any new claim or for enforcing any new right. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, the employee has not approached the Industrial court with any new claim or for enforcing any new right. He approached the Court for enforcing the decision of the standing committee of the Council taken on 10. 8. 1979. The employee was appointed by designating him an U. D. C.-cum-typist and he discharged duties of that post since the date of his appointment. The educational qualifications have, thus, been relaxed in his case by the Council by appointing him on the post and in taking work from him of the said post. The employee therefore, could not have been denied to the scale of pay of U. D. C. on the ground that he is only matriculate and not a graduate. ( 15 ) FOR the above reasons, the order of the Labour Court deserves to be sustained. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, I make no order as to cost. The amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .