JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : The State of Orissa and its officers in the Forest (Wild Life) Department are the writ petitioners as¬sailing the order of the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Orissa (Annexure-5) rejecting their prayer for revoking and/or cancell¬ing the registration granted in favour of the opposite party No.1 under the Trade Unions Act. 2. The brief facts of the case is that Nandan Kanan Zoolog¬ical Park formerly known as State Biological Park came into existence in the year 1960 with an object of imparting education and research in the matter of plant and animal life in open environment, conservation, education and research on wild life. The entire manpower required for up-keep and maintenance of animals are civil servants under the State of Orissa and their service conditions are regulated under Orissa Service Code except some casual labourers. This being basically an institution estab¬lished for advanced studies on plant and animal life, its em¬ployees cannot acquire the status of workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Unions Act. However, the regis¬tration certificate was illegally issued to Nandan Kanan Workers Union under the provision of Trade Unions Act at the instance of one J. Routray and A. K. Nayak, who identified themselves as the President and Joint Secretary of the Trade Union. No enquiry was made nor the Authorities of the Nandan Kanan Zoological Park were issued notice nor intimated to appear in such proceedings. The writ petitioners moved High Court in O.J.C. 735 of 1991 for quashing of the registration certificate granted to the Nandan Kanan Workers Union dated 8.7.81 on the ground that the Zoo is not an industry and is not carrying on any industrial activity and as such its employees are not workmen to come under the Trade Unions Act. The workers union also filed O.J.C. No.1627 of 1990 assailing the order of the Government dated 6.12.89 directing that the Nandan Kanan Worker’s Union not having been recognized by the Government, the employees of the Zoo, if they were not Government employees, can only join the said union. The Court observed that the decision on the question as to whether the employees serving in the Zoo are entitled to be the members of the Union would depend upon entitlement to the registration certificate by the unions under the Trade Unions Act. The Court observed that the decision on the question as to whether the employees serving in the Zoo are entitled to be the members of the Union would depend upon entitlement to the registration certificate by the unions under the Trade Unions Act. However, the Court having found that the State Government have filed an application before the Registrar, Trade Union for cancellation of the certificate granted to the Nandan Kanan Workers Union, ob¬served that the matters should be considered by the original authority and accordingly disposed of both the writ petitions as withdrawn. 3. The Registrar of Trade Union, Orissa has rejected the plea of the writ petitioners. The Registrar repelled the conten¬tion of the writ petitioners that Nandan Kanan Zoological Park is not an industry and persons working thereunder are not workmen within the definition of workmen contemplated under the Industri¬al Disputes Act and as such not entitled to registration as a trade union. Hence the writ petition. 4. Mr. R. N. Acharya, learned Additional Government Advo¬cate, submits that the Nandan Kanan Zoological Park (hereinafter called as ‘Nandan Kanan’) is not an industry or a commercial organization as claimed by the opposite party No.1 and so held by the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is a conservation center and conservation, education, research, scientific study and training are the main objectives and functions of Nandan Kanan as contem¬plated in the master plan of Nandan Kanan approved by Central Zoo and Government of Orissa. The management of the sanctuary or the national park is not a commercial/industrial activity but is meant for conservation of wildlife. There is provision in the Wild Life Protection Act for granting entry permit to enter or reside in sanctuary subject to such conditions and on payment of such entry fees, as may be prescribed. Thus, such entry fee for Nandan Kanan is to be perceived. It is necessary to regulate and manage the visitors inflow through different operational arrange¬ments. The nominal entry charge to the visitors was one of the operational arrangements required for regulating and managing visitors inflow. Visitors visiting Nandan Kanan expose them of public understanding of wild animals and their welfare and the issues involved in wildlife conservation. Such education/aware¬ness is the integral part of function of Nandan Kanan. The expen¬ditures of maintaining Nandan Kanan are mostly incurred by the Government. Visitors visiting Nandan Kanan expose them of public understanding of wild animals and their welfare and the issues involved in wildlife conservation. Such education/aware¬ness is the integral part of function of Nandan Kanan. The expen¬ditures of maintaining Nandan Kanan are mostly incurred by the Government. It is further submitted that the Zoo is working as per the provisions laid down in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and is recognized by Central Zoo Authority. The Government of India, realizing that the Zoo is not an institution for pro¬viding entertainments and recreation, but an institution which provides scientific management of wild animals has evolved a National Zoo Policy in the year 1998. Para 3.10.2 of the National Zoo Policy, 1998 provides that the Zoo shall not provide any infrastructure for recreation/entertaining of visitors that is inconsistent with the stated objective of Zoos. A true copy of the National Zoo Policy has been filed as Annexure-III. Sri Acharya submits that the main objectives of the Zoo is to comple¬ment and strengthen the national efforts in conservation of the rich biodiversity of the country, particularly the wild fauna. The objective proposed can be achieved through the following protocol : “A. Supporting the conservation of endangered species by giving species, which have no chance of survival in wild, a last chance of survival through coordinated breeding under ex-situ conditions and rise stocks for rehabilitating them in wild as and when it is appropriate and desirable; B. To inspire amongst Zoo visitors’ empathy for wild ani¬mals, an understanding and awareness about the need for conservation of natural resources and for maintaining the ecolog¬ical balance; C. Providing opportunities for scientific studies useful for conservation in general and creation of date base for sharing between the agencies involved in in-situ and ex-situ conserva¬tion. D. Besides the aforesaid objectives, the Zoos shall continue to function as rescue centers for orphaned wild animals, subject to the availability of appropriate housing and upkeep infrastruc¬ture. Where appropriate housing and upkeep is not available, State Government and the Central Government would ascertain set¬ting up rescue facilities in off-the-display areas of the Zoo, subject to the availability of land.” 5. The institutions like Zoos are last resort for wildlife, as forest and precious wildlife is shrinking which necessitates scientific study and management of wild animals. It does research and scientific study on animal breeding, rearing, animal behaviour, nutrition, reproductive biology, diseases and their control. The institutions like Zoos are last resort for wildlife, as forest and precious wildlife is shrinking which necessitates scientific study and management of wild animals. It does research and scientific study on animal breeding, rearing, animal behaviour, nutrition, reproductive biology, diseases and their control. The knowledge so gained can be used in management of wildlife in the wild and in ex-situ conservation and manage¬ment of wildlife. Such research/scientific study are not organ¬ized with profit motive. The research so done by the Zoo does not provide any income or profit to the institution nor is it salea¬ble. It is further emphasized that another important objective of the Zoo is to inspire amongst the visitors empathy for wild animals and to create an awareness and understanding of the need for conservation of natural resources which is required for main¬taining ecological balance. It serves as the Wildlife Education and Research Center, which is visited by Forest Officers, veter¬inary officers, faculty and students of Schools/Colleges/Univer¬sities, trainers, who are taught different aspects of wildlife management. Submission is made that the Zoo does not provide any materialistic services to anyone. It does not produce or supply any goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes. But the main objectives are to preserve animals and save them from extinction. The nominal charges charged by the Zoo as entry fee is only for the purpose of regulating the visitors and to restrict uncontrolled visitors and to prevent misuse of the Zoo premises by general public and anti-social elements. The amounts so collected are not for providing any recreation or amusement or with profit motive. The display of animals is not for entertaining but to fulfil or carry out its objectives of conserving wild animals, research, scientific study, education awareness and training and to promote wildlife conservation in much larger context. Thus the activities of Zoo and its inten¬tions are not oriented towards commercialization or for materi¬alistic gains. All these make it very clear that the Nandan Kanan cannot be treated as an industry and consequentially the em¬ployees cannot be treated as workmen as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Unions Act. 6. Thus the activities of Zoo and its inten¬tions are not oriented towards commercialization or for materi¬alistic gains. All these make it very clear that the Nandan Kanan cannot be treated as an industry and consequentially the em¬ployees cannot be treated as workmen as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Unions Act. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the registration certificate granted by the Regis¬trar of Trade Unions by assuming Nandan Kanan as an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act is an error of law and on a complete misconception which has no bearing to the actual objectives and task performed by Nandan Kanan Zoological Park. It cannot be treated as a trade or commercial activity generating profits. It does not provide any materialistic service and it has not been in trade and thus Zoo cannot be considered as an industry. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1, on the contrary, submits that Nandan Kanan is an industry as contemplat¬ed under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Workers’ Union has been recognized as a trade union. Submission is made that the activity conducted by petitioner No.3 is commer¬cial activity; it collects entry fee, Safari, Ropeway etc. and selling of wildlife. It is also for entertainment to the visitors and on that account; it derives income by way of collection of entry fee. The research work is only incidental on infrastructure of the Zoo and the researchers bear the cost and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is further submitted that cancellation of a certificate of registration of a trade union as contemplated under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act can be made only on the contingencies mentioned therein and none of the contingencies is being available, the Registrar could not have cancelled the registration. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in Bangalore Water Supply V. A. Rajappa Industry; AIR 1978 SC 548 . Reference has also been made to the decision in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jaganath M. Kondhare; AIR 1996 SC 2898 . 9. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in Bangalore Water Supply V. A. Rajappa Industry; AIR 1978 SC 548 . Reference has also been made to the decision in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jaganath M. Kondhare; AIR 1996 SC 2898 . 9. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the core questions that need consideration is as to whether the Nandan Kanan Zoological Park is an industry within the meaning and ambit of Sub-section (J) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employees are its workmen, and whether thee Registrar of Trade Unions has erred in law in rejecting the petitioners’ application for cancellation/revocation of the registration of the opposite party No.1-union as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act. 10. Learned counsel for both the parties place the reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V. A. Rajappa and others; AIR 1978 SC 548 in support of their respective contentions as noted herein before. The apex Court in the Bangalore Water Supply case has elaborately discussed what is an industry. It has been held that an industry as defined under Section 2(j) has a wide import: (a) where there is (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation bet¬ween employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) (ii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (non spiritual or religious but inclusive or material things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale prasad or food), prima facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise, (b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private and other sector. (c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations. (d) If the organization is a trade or busi¬ness, it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animat¬ing the undertaking. 11. The apex Court has further observed that although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be magnified to overreach itself. Undertak¬ing must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as ex¬plained in Banerji (supra) decision and in this judgment, so also, service, calling and the like. 11. The apex Court has further observed that although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be magnified to overreach itself. Undertak¬ing must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as ex¬plained in Banerji (supra) decision and in this judgment, so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements although not trade or business, may still be ‘industry’ provided the nature of the activity, viz, the employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to what we find in trade or business. This takes into the fold ‘industry’ undertakings, callings any services, adventures, analogous to the carrying on of trade or business’. All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the co-operation between employer and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy. The apex Court in paragraph-142 of the aforesaid judgment observed : “142. Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resul¬tant of the economic operations. The ideology of the Act being industrial peace, regulation and resolution of industrial dis¬putes between employer and workmen, the range of this statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing more. a. The consequences are (i) professions, (ii) clubs, (iii) educational institutions, (iv) co-operatives, (v) research insti¬tutes, (vi) charitable projects, and (vii) other kindred adven¬tures; if they fulfil the triple tests listed in I (supra) cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2(j) b. A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-opera¬tives and even gurukulas and little research labs, may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures substantially and, going by the dominant nature criterion, substantively, no employees are entertained but in minimal matters, marginal employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the unit. c. If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves, free or for small honoraria or like return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services, clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashra¬mites working at the bidding of the holiness, divinity or like central personality, and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship, then, the institution is not an industry even if stray servants, manual or technical, are hired. Such eleemosynary or like undertaking alone are exempt - not other generosity, compassion, developmental pas¬sion or project.” 12. The apex Court further laid down the dominant nature test. Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employee on the total undertak¬ings, some of whom are not “workmen” or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the pre-dominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur’s case will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be “industry” although those who are not “workmen” by definition may not bene¬fit by the status. Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sover¬eign function, strictly understood, qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or Statutory Bodies. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j). Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby. 13. In Physical Research Laboratory v. K. G. Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 1855 , the apex Court had occasion to consider as to whether Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is an institution under the Government of India, Department of Space, which is engaged in pure research in Space Science and the purpose of the research is to acquire knowledge about the formation and evolu¬tion of the Universe but the knowledge thus acquired is not intended for sale. The apex Court took into consideration the decision in Bangalore Water Supply Case (supra) and Chief Conser¬vator of Forests v.Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, 1996 AIR SCW 735 and other decisions of the apex Court and taking note of the factual finding that the research work carried on by the PRL is not connected with production, supply or distribution of material goods or services and though the result of the research work done by it are occasionally published, they have never been sold, held that PRL is not covered under the ambit of an industry contem¬plated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Having so found, the apex Court observed that the material disclosed that the object with which the research activity is undertaken by PRL is to obtain knowledge for the benefit of the Department of Space. Its object is not to render services to others nor infact it does so except in an indirect manner, held that it is more an institution discharging governmental functions and a domestic enterprise than a commercial enterprise and thus is not an industry even though it is carrying on the activity of research in a systematic manner with the help of its employees as it lacks that element which would make it an organization carrying on an activity which can be said to be analogous to the carrying on of a trade or business because it is not producing and distributing services which are intended or meant for satisfying human wants and needs, as ordi¬narily understood. 14. In the case at hand, it has been specifically pleaded which has not been controverted by production of any document that the purpose and object of the zoo is for conservation of animals and for breeding and rearing endangered species of fauna with an intention to save them from extinction and eventually to enrich the depleted fauna/biodiversity. It does not function for providing commercial or industrial activity. It is not motivated by profits as evident from the objectives. It is a sanctuary for protection, propagation, development and research on wild life and this indicates that the Government has no intention of earn¬ing money as a commercial organization or industry. The national park is not a commercial or industrial activity but is meant for conservation of wild life under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act. It is a sanctuary for protection, propagation, development and research on wild life and this indicates that the Government has no intention of earn¬ing money as a commercial organization or industry. The national park is not a commercial or industrial activity but is meant for conservation of wild life under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act. The permission granted on payment of entry fee is only to regulate and manage the visitor inflow through differ¬ent operational arrangements. It is necessary to refrain the flow of uncontrolled public in general for better and healthy environ¬ment, conducive to the aims and objectives for wild life conser¬vation, education, awareness, training, research and scientific study. The aims and objectives of allowing visitors is to expose them of public understanding of wild animals and their welfare and the issues involved in wildlife conservation and not for their entertainment. We have discussed the main objectives of the zoo here-in-before in extenso. The purpose is to acquire knowledge and take care of the wild animals and educating public for con¬servation of wildlife and environment. There is nothing on record to show that the knowledge so acquired is marketable or has any commercial value. It has not been pointed out as to how the knowledge acquired by Zoological park or the results of the research will be useful to persons other than those engaged in such type of study. It is obviously not for rendering services to others. It is not a case where the Nandan Kanan Zoological Park is engaged in an activity of business, trade or manufacture. From the nature of its organization and the activity, it cannot be said also to be an ‘undertaking’ analogous to business or trade. The activity cannot be described as an economic venture or a commercial enterprise. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the Nandan Kanan Zoological Park is not an industry or an undertaking within the meaning of Sub-section-j of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Registrar of Trade Unions that Nandan Kanan is an industry or enterprise or calling within the meaning of Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act has to be quashed and we so direct. 15. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Registrar of Trade Unions that Nandan Kanan is an industry or enterprise or calling within the meaning of Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act has to be quashed and we so direct. 15. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether the employees can form a trade union under the Trade Unions Act and as such the registration granted in their favour is in consonance with law. Trade union has been defined under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as under: “2.(b). {office-bearer}’ in the case of a Trade Union, in¬cludes any member of the executive thereof, but does not include an auditor.” The mode of registration is contemplated under Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act. Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade Union and by otherwise complying with the provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union under this Act. Section 4 of the Act is quoted hereunder for better appreciation: “4. Mode of Registration: Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade Union and by otherwise complying with the provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union under this Act. Section 4 of the Act is quoted hereunder for better appreciation: “4. Mode of Registration: Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade Union and by otherwise complying with the provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union under this Act. [Provided that no Trade Union of workmen shall be registered unless at least ten per cent, or one hundred of the workmen, whichever is less, engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is connected are the members of such Trade Union on the date of making of application for registration; Provided further that no Trade Union of workmen shall be registered unless it has on the date of making application not less than seven persons as its members, who are workmen engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is connected.] [(2) Where an application has been made under Sub-section (1) for the registration of a Trade Union, such application shall not be deemed to have become invalid merely by reason of the fact that, at any time after the date of the application, but before the registration of the Trade Union, some of the applicants, but not exceeding half of the total number of persons who made the application, have caused to be members of the Trade Union or have given notice in writing to the Registrar dissociating themselves from the application.]” 16. The registration is granted by the Registrar in terms of Section 8 thereof. Section 10 of the Act speaks of cancella¬tion of registration. “Workman” has not been specifically defined under the Trade Unions Act. In absence any definition of Workman, a reference may be made to the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The registration is granted by the Registrar in terms of Section 8 thereof. Section 10 of the Act speaks of cancella¬tion of registration. “Workman” has not been specifically defined under the Trade Unions Act. In absence any definition of Workman, a reference may be made to the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under Section 2(s) “Workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational cleri¬cal or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, include any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dis¬pute, or whose dismissal, discharge of retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person as contem¬plated under Clause-i to iv. 17. In Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour and others; 1996 SCC (L&S) 97, the apex Court, while considering a cancellation of registration of trade union under the Trade Unions Act, has observed that any group of employees which comes together primarily for the purpose of regulating the relation between them and their employer or between them and other workmen may be registered as a trade union under the Act. The registration of the association of the said workmen as a trade union under the Act has nothing to do with whether the said wings of the appellant are an industry or not. The apex Court, therefore, held that finding as to whether the members of the trade union are working in an industry or not is of no conse¬quence and not germane to the question. 18. The cancellation of registration of a trade union is contemplated under Section 10 the Act. A trade union can be cancelled in any of the grounds as mentioned in Clauses a, b and c. The Registrar, in the impugned order, has clearly observed that all workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act are workmen under the Trade Unions Act but all workmen under the Trade Unions Act are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. A trade union can be cancelled in any of the grounds as mentioned in Clauses a, b and c. The Registrar, in the impugned order, has clearly observed that all workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act are workmen under the Trade Unions Act but all workmen under the Trade Unions Act are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further observed that all members of trade union may not neces¬sarily be workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and, there¬fore, it is not essential that for formation of a trade union, it is necessary for the employees to be workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. On such finding, the Registrar has refused to allow the prayer of the writ petitioners for cancellation of the trade union of opposite party No.1. In view of the definition and the decision in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour and others; 1996 SCC (L&S) 97, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the members of the trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act are necessarily not workmen defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and those are not relevant consideration for determining their eligibility for registration. 18. In such view of the matter, the decision of the Regis¬trar of the Trade Unions not to revoke/cancel the registration granted in favour of opposite party No.1, does not suffer from any illegality calling for intervention of this Court. But we hasten to add that even though the registration of the trade union; opposite party No.1 is not illegal, their members are not workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition thus is allowed in part, to the extent indicated. However, there shall be no order as to cost. J. P. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petition allowed in part.