A. K. MATHUR, J. K. BISWAS ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by learned single Judge dated March 26, 1999 affirming his earlier order dated May 11, 1998. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on March 26, 1999 with the finding recorded by him on May 11, 1998. ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge passed the order dated March 26, 1999 holding that in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Coir Board, Emakulam, Cochin and Anr. v. Indira Devi P. S. and Ors. reported in air 1998 SC 2801 : 1998 (3) SCC 259 : 1998-1- LLJ-937, there is no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondents claim themselves to be workmen and raised industrial dispute alleging that they are workmen under the appellants. Therefore, they are workmen under the appellants and are entitled to relief for their service benefits. A reference was made by the Government to the industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal answered the question in favour of the employees and directed the Co-operative Society to give them necessary benefits. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against that award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated July 31, 1987, the present writ petition was filed by the co-operative Society. The matter was heard by the learned single Judge on May 11, 1998 and the learned single Judge recorded his finding. It was brought to the notice of the learned single judge that a reference has been made to larger bench of Apex Court with regard to interpretation of 'industry' as defined in section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act with reference to the Bangalore Water Supply and sewerage Board v. Rajappa 's case reported in air 1978 SC 548 : 1978 (2) SCC 213 : 1978-I-LLJ- 349. Therefore, the learned single judge, instead of deciding the matter, deferred the matter till the reference was decided by the apex Court. Thereafter, the reference was decided by the Apex Court in Coir Board's case (supra ). The learned single Judge took the view that the Co-operative Society is an industry and dismissed the writ petition of the concerned co-operative Society. Thereafter, the reference was decided by the Apex Court in Coir Board's case (supra ). The learned single Judge took the view that the Co-operative Society is an industry and dismissed the writ petition of the concerned co-operative Society. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED against both the orders dated march 26, 1999 and May 11, 1998, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel, for the appellants, has invited our attention to a decision in the case of Mgmt. , Som Vihar Apartment Owners' housing and Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen C/o. Indian Engg. and General mazdoor reported in AIR 2002 SC 2530 : 2002 (9) SCC 652 : 2001-I-LLJ-1413 wherein similar question was raised as to whether the co-operative Housing Society is an industry or not and the workmen working there are entitled to D. A. , H. R. A. allowance etc. or not. Their lordships answered the question so far as co-operative Society is concerned, it is not an industry. In this connection Their Lordships referred to the earlier decisions of the Supreme court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. v. 5 State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 2047 : 1990 (4) SCC 472 : 1994-III-LLJ (Suppl)-378 and in the Bangalore Water supply's case, (supra) as well as a decision reported in 1995 LIC page 813. ( 7 ) AFTER considering all the aspects of the matter, Their Lordships took the view that housing Co-operative Society is not an industry and likewise the persons employed there, are not workmen. Their Lordships observed that in view of the decision of rajappa 's case, a domestic servant cannot be treated to be a workman. Their Lordships held that it should not be understood that all services and calling would come within the purview of the definition; service rendered by a domestic servant is purely in a personal or domestic matter or even in a casual way would fall outside the definition. Therefore, when the Housing Co-operative Society has been held to be not an industry, the respondents cannot be treated to be workmen as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial disputes Act. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel, for the respondents, has invited our attention to the coir Board's case (supra) which has a reference made for reconsideration of the bangalore Water Supply case (supra ). ( 8 ) THE learned counsel, for the respondents, has invited our attention to the coir Board's case (supra) which has a reference made for reconsideration of the bangalore Water Supply case (supra ). But the said reference was negatived by the Apex court. Therefore, this case does not provide any useful assistance. However, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of mgmt. Spm Vihar Apartment Owners' Housing and Maintenance Society Ltd. (supra ). ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgment, the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed. The i impugned orders passed by the learned single judge are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) LET xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for by the parties, be delivered to them.