JUDGMENT : K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—Writ petition was preferred by the appellant challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur holding that the termination of service of the respondent worker is illegal and ab initio void and also against the direction given to the management to reinstate her in service with full back wages and continuity of service. Learned single Judge repelled the challenge. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred. Government of Kerala u/s 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the issue regarding termination of respondent to Labour Court for adjudication. Worker was terminated from service while she was holding the post of Office Assistant. She was put in charge of the establishment which was publishing a monthly publication by name "Karshaka Lokam". She was appointed as Office Assistant on March 10, 1984. She was getting monthly salary of Rs. 400/-. Syndicate Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation was looking after all the affairs of the Farmer Information Club. After formation of the Farmer Information Club the management used to print books containing informations required for agriculture. They used to collect Rs. 217- from members which included membership fee and subscription. Magazine cost of Rs. II- was also printed on it. Magazine also contains advertisements for which tariff was fixed by the management. On February 28, 1991 the worker was served with notice of termination. By the time she had already put in more than six years of uninterrupted service. Worker resisted the termination stating that would amount to retrenchment and that she was not given retrenchment compensation which is a pre- condition for retrenchment. Dispute was raised by the worker stating that the mandatory condition precedent to retrenchment was not followed and consequently she sought for a declaration that she is liable to be treated as continuing in the service with all back wages. 2. Management resisted the contention stating that the Syndicate Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation is a voluntary, non-profit organisation consisting of more than 10000 members mostly hailing from rural areas and is registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960. The objectives of the Society as set out in its memorandum also do not constitute the foundation an "industry" as defined u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The objectives of the Society as set out in its memorandum also do not constitute the foundation an "industry" as defined u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, it was also stated that in view of the closing down of the publication of" "Karshaka Lokam" and also in view of the fact that large number of Farmer Information Exchange Clubs have become defunct, activities in the Regional Sub-Committee and the work load came down considerably, consequently it was decided to close down the publication of "Karshaka Lokam" and therefore the services of the worker was also terminated with one month's notice. Worker was therefore relieved from service on February 28, 1991 giving her one month's salary. Worker was examined as WW-1. MW-1 was examined on the side of the management. Exhibit W-l was produced on the side of the worker. Exhibits M-l to M-18 were produced on the side of the management. Before the Labour Court the following issues were raised: 1. Whether the management concern is an industry as defined u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. If so, whether the termination of service of Smt R. Sujatha, Office Assistant is justifiable or not? Labour Court after considering oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the management concerned is an industry as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act and that the worker's service was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. 3. Counsel appearing for the management Sri. U.K. Ramakrishnan submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in holding that the management concerned is an industry and that the management had violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Counsel submitted that the management of Syndicate Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation has deposed that the activities of the foundation relates to agricultural operation, organising educational, scientific research and training institutions and that the institution is substantially engaged in charitable, social and philanthropic services and therefore the activities of the institution do not come under the definition of industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel submitted it is also running educational, scientific research and training institutions for the development of agriculture and for the uplift of farmers. The termination of service of the worker cannot be termed as retrenchment, within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. Counsel submitted it is also running educational, scientific research and training institutions for the development of agriculture and for the uplift of farmers. The termination of service of the worker cannot be termed as retrenchment, within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. Counsel submitted since the termination of service of the workers is not retrenchment under the Act, the conditions precedent to the retrenchment as stated in Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is also not available to the worker. 4. Counsel appearing for the worker submitted that Karshaka Lokam journal is registered under the Press Registration Act and the price is imprinted on it and it has to be held that the publication and sales of journal is a systematic activity intended for the satisfaction of human wants or wishes with the co-operation of employees. According to him, foundation would come under the definition of industry. Counsel submitted that the worker had continuous uninterrupted service of more than 6 years and as per Section 2(oo), retrenchment is the termination by the employer of the service of the worker for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. But service was terminated due to surplus of labour and therefore due to non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act retrenchment is void ab-initio and the worker is entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. 5. Question as to whether the establishment is an industry or not within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 213 , wherein it was held that where there is systematic activity organised by co-operation between employer and employee 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 service geared to celestial bliss, prima facie there is an industry in that enterprise. Earlier in The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, AIR 1960 SC 610 , it has been held that profit motives and charitable nature is irrelevant and if there is a systematic activity by the employees for the production of goods or services, it will come under the definition of an industry. Earlier in The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, AIR 1960 SC 610 , it has been held that profit motives and charitable nature is irrelevant and if there is a systematic activity by the employees for the production of goods or services, it will come under the definition of an industry. In order to ascertain whether an activity is an industry or not the following is the test as per the dictum laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 213 . (i) Whether the enterprise like any other yields profits but they are siphoned off for altruistic objects, (ii) where the institution makes no profit but hires the service of the employees as in other, like business, but in goods and services where the out put are made available at low or no costs to indigent needs were priced out of market, (iii) where the establishment is oriented on a human mission fulfilled by men who work not because they are paid wages, but because they share the passion for the cause and derive job satisfaction from the contribution. 6. We may test the present case in the light of the abovementioned principles. It has been specifically stated by MW- 1 that the price of the journal is printed on the journal. The price is Rs. 2. Registrar of Press insisted for putting a price on the journal before release of new print. Journal was recognized under the Press Registration Act and it is not mentioned in the journal that is meant for private circulation. Once it is registered under the Press Registration the journal can be sold in open market. Advertisements were collected and printed in the journal. Tariff rate for the advertisement are also printed therein. MW-1 also stated that the publication has become uneconomical and that was the reason why the service of the employee was terminated. Facts would indicate that the management was functioning with a view of profit making. Karshaka Lokam journal was printed in four languages, Kannada, Hindi, Telugu and Malayalam and supplied to the members. MW-1 also stated that the publication has become uneconomical and that was the reason why the service of the employee was terminated. Facts would indicate that the management was functioning with a view of profit making. Karshaka Lokam journal was printed in four languages, Kannada, Hindi, Telugu and Malayalam and supplied to the members. Documents produced in this case, in our view, would satisfy the tests laid down by the Apex Court in various cases and we are of the view that the worker was engaged in publication which would fall within the definition of industry u/s 2(j) of the Act. 7. me next question to be considered is whether the worker is entitled to get protection of Section 25-F of the Act and whether the management has complied with the mandatory conditions contained in that Section. Worker was appointed on March 10, 1984 and her service was terminated on February 28, 1991. Management has no case that the worker was terminated as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Management has also no case that they had paid any retrenchment compensation to the worker. Therefore, mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F is not complied with by the management. It has therefore to be held that the worker is entitled to have a declaration that the termination of service of the worker is illegal and ab-initio void. We therefore fully concur with the view expressed by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal.