ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ peti-tion has been preferred by management of Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station. Hazaribagh against the Award dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 15/90 whereby and whereunder the dispute as was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was answered in favour of workmen represented by 3rd respondent. Anusandhan and Farm Mazdoor. Union, Hazaribagh and directed the management-petitioner to regularise the services of all concerned workmen and to pay them the arrears of wages from 1990 till date as admissible to chowkidar, peon and other category within a stipulated period. 2. The petitioner, Central Research Station. Hazaribagh, is a sub-station of Central Rice Research Institute. Cuttack an Autonomous Body under Indian Council of Agricultural Research and a society under the Societies Registration Act. The 3rd respondent on behalf of 81 workmen raised dispute relating to regulari-sation of service and back wages which was referred for conciliation and on failure, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. 1947 referred the following dispute to Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42011/11/89-IR (DU) dated 25.7.1990: THE SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station. Masipidi. Hazaribagh in not regularising Smt. Panawa Devi, W/o Deo Narayan Rani and 80 others workmen as mentioned in Annexure-1 and also not making payment of proper wages and other benefits to them is Justified. If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" The concerned workmen Panawa Devi and 80 others filed written statement through their union and claimed to be the workmen of the management performing perirnerial na-ture of job against the posts which were permanent nature. It was alleged that the management stopped them from working with a mala fide attitude so that none of them could complete total 240 working days, purposely, to avoid legal obligations of absorbing them in their, respective posts permanently. They worked between 6th June. 1986 to 1988 till they were stopped to perform their work. It was alleged that the management stopped them from working with a mala fide attitude so that none of them could complete total 240 working days, purposely, to avoid legal obligations of absorbing them in their, respective posts permanently. They worked between 6th June. 1986 to 1988 till they were stopped to perform their work. It was alleged by the union that the workmen where engaged by the management not in their own names but describing them in different names with a view to avoid legal complicacy/legal obligation of regularisation as they were continuously performing permanent nature of job as evident from their wage- sheets and labour registers etc. They were not allowed to work since 1988. nor allowed the benefits of bonus, provident fund etc. apart from their deprivation from the legal benefits of parity of pay on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Further case of the workmen was that they performed duties of the Research Institute throughout the year, remained engaged in various types of duties and they never worked as seasonal workers, nor their duties were seasonal in nature. They having performed duties of perennial nature, like permanent employee, were entitled to be treated as permanent employee of the Research Institute for deriving all the benefits. The management-petitioner filed their written statement, denied the allegation and raised the question of maintainability of the reference case, it being a Research Institute and not an Industry to bring it within the purview of I.D. Act. It was specifically pleaded that the petitioner being a research institute, an autonomous body guided by I.C.A.R. Rules, the provisions of the I.D. Act were not applicable. The management also disputed the claim that the workmen in question worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year or the research work is carried by the institute employing the concerned workmen throughout the year. It was pointed out that the workmen were engaged for cultivation for a period of about six months in a calendar year, right from the time of sowing of paddy till the time of harvesting, as also for construction of road, excavation of tank etc. 3. The learned Presiding Officer. Tribunal taking into consideration the statement of witness and hearing the parties while accepted that the institute was engaged in research work, held it an Industry by Award dated 26.5.1995. 3. The learned Presiding Officer. Tribunal taking into consideration the statement of witness and hearing the parties while accepted that the institute was engaged in research work, held it an Industry by Award dated 26.5.1995. The so-called Award dated 26.6.1995 in Reference No. 15/90 cannot be termed to be an Award having not reached finality. Records being not available to suggest the period of one or other workmen worked in a calendar year, nor any specific evidence on record to find out the workmen actually worked during calendar year, learned Presiding Officer directed the management to form a Committee of three senior most officers. After negotiation with the union and in case of disagreement as per choice of the management to find out and submit report as to how many permanent workmen art required to be given employment and to prepare a panel of casual labourers pursuant to Circular dated 16.12.1998 as per seniority, age etc. for regularisation of their services against the permanent vacancies. Three months time was allowed to the Committee to submit the report. The workmen challenged the aforesaid Award dated 26.6.1995 before this Court in CWJC No. 3137/96(R). A Bench of this Court taking into consideration the fact that the Award was incomplete, finality having not reached, set aside the implementing portion of the so-called Award dated 23.6.1995 and directed to constitute a fresh Committee with proper representation of the workmen union to submit report in respect to individual 81 workmen was referred in the reference. Learned Tribunal was directed tc pass final Award taking into consideration the report as would have submitted by the Committee on hearing the parties. It appears that the Committee thereafter could not submit any report within time scheduled, the relevant documents including register etc. having seized by Labour Enforcement Officer (C) and they were not traceable in the office of L.E.O. (C). In the aforesaid background, the learned Presiding Officer passed impugned Award on 15.7.1999 and decided the case in favour of workmen without discussing the relevant evidence (s), being not available before the Tribunal. The sole ground taken to direct regularisation that the management dragged the matter and reports were not submitted by the Committee as per decision of the High Court. The petitioner has raised the question of maintainability of reference case on the ground that the petitioner-research institute is not an Industry. 4. Mrs. M.M. Pal. The sole ground taken to direct regularisation that the management dragged the matter and reports were not submitted by the Committee as per decision of the High Court. The petitioner has raised the question of maintainability of reference case on the ground that the petitioner-research institute is not an Industry. 4. Mrs. M.M. Pal. counsel for the 3rd respondent-Union opposed such statement on the ground of res judicata and pleaded that the issue having reached finality, cannot be determined, the High Court having not entertained such plea in CWJC No. 3137/96 (R), disposed of on 21.1.1998. The issue aforesaid was raised by the petitioner before the learned Presiding Officer, who vide so-called Award dated 26.6.1995 answered the issue in positive against the management and in favour of petitioner, holding the research institute is an Industry and made following observation: "In the said case their Lordships elaborately discussed what is the meaning of "Industry" under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and their decision is that triple tests such as (1) systematic activity. (2) co-operation between employer and employee and (3) production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes are to be taken into consideration and if these are satisfied prima facie whatever may be the nature and nomenclature of the concerned that will be treated as an Industry. In the instant case there is no dispute that systematic labourers are employed for the purpose of systematic research in the matter of high yielding crops with the cooperation between the employers and the employee and the result or crops of the research work is distributed to different cultivators thereby leading to satisfy human wants and wishes for getting better crops having a departure from the stereo type manner of cultivation. Thereby I hold that the three tests which have been pointed out by their Lordships for consideration in order to treat one organisation and bring the same as "Industry" within the ambit of I.D. Act. 1947 under Section 2(j) of the said act appears to be fulfilled prima facie and thus 1 have no hesitation to hold that the present management is an Industry and that comes within the embit of I.D. Act and the dispute if any arises between the management and the workmen that would be decided under the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 under Section 2(j) of the said act appears to be fulfilled prima facie and thus 1 have no hesitation to hold that the present management is an Industry and that comes within the embit of I.D. Act and the dispute if any arises between the management and the workmen that would be decided under the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947." The rest of the issues framed when so-called Award was issued on 26.6.1995 are quoted below: "1. How many workers used to work in the said industry or the management for which period. 2. Whether they can be considered to be permanent employees as against permanent vacancies or they are seasonal workers as contended by the management. 3. Are they entitled to be regularised or absorbed as against permanent vacancy as claimed, and 4. If so. whether they are entitled to get back wages or the reliefs as claimed for?" 5. Learned Presiding Officer while accepted that Institute is a Research Institute, further held that the staff attached with the scientist and office were so engaged for the purpose of research work, permanent in nature, throughout the year. The earlier so-called Award dated 26.6.1995 cannot be held to be an Award in the eye of law, subsequent impugned Award having given on 12.7.1999 in Reference Case No. 15/90. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Award having reached finality on 12.7.1999 and the same being under challenge, it is open for the petitioner to raise the question of maintainability before this Court. The question as to whether Research Institute is an Industry or not and whether at the instance of the workmen of such research institute any reference under I.D. Act, 1947 was maintainable or not is a question of law. if there is no dispute relating to status of the institute. Admittedly, the petitioners Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Institute, Hazaribagh is a Research Institute. This fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Presiding Officer and also pleaded by the Union of the workmen in their written statement. It is the Union on behalf of workmen took plea that the workmen help in the matter of research work. Admittedly, the petitioners Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Institute, Hazaribagh is a Research Institute. This fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Presiding Officer and also pleaded by the Union of the workmen in their written statement. It is the Union on behalf of workmen took plea that the workmen help in the matter of research work. Similar question in respect to Research Institute carrying research work not connected with production, supply or distribution of goods or services fell for consideration before the Supreme court in the Case of Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma, reported in 1997(2) S.C. Services Law Judgments 54. In the said case, taking into consideration the different judgments of the Supreme Court and facts, held the said Physical Research Laboratory is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. 6. From the Award dated 26.6.1995 and the subsequent Award dated 12.7.1999 in Reference No. 15/90 and the pleading made by the parties, it will be evident that none of the parties pleaded that the petitioner-research institute is engaged in an activity which can be called business, trade or manufacture. Neither from the nature of its organisation nor from the nature and character of the .activity carried on by it. as brought on record, it can be said to be undertaking analogous to business or trade. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner-research Institute is engaged in a commercial or industrial activity nor anything on the record to suggest any economic venture on the part of the workmen. It has no object to produce and distribute service to satisfy needs of the consumer community. Thus, it can be safely stated that the petitioner is merely carrying on the activity of research in a systematic manner with the help of its employees as it lacks all element to make it an organisation carrying business activity concerning any trade or business to bring it within the purview of industry as defined under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. 1947. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the reference itself was not maintainable, the petitioner- Research Institute being not an industry. 1947. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the reference itself was not maintainable, the petitioner- Research Institute being not an industry. In the facts and circumstances, as the reference itself was not maintainable and the impugned Award dated 26.6.1995 read with 12.7.1999 has been passed without appreciation of evidence in respect to work performed by the workmen, it cannot be upheld and is set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations. 9. Writ petition allowed.