JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Suresh Prasad Tripathi has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur passed in adjudication case No. 134 of 1982 dated 23rd November, 1984. 2. The following dispute was referred to by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short ‘the Act’) to the Labour Court for adjudication : “Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of the workman Suresh Prasad Tripath with effect from 16th July, 1981 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and with what details?” 3. The labour Court issued notices to both the workman as well as the employer. Both the workman and the employer exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence. Before the labour Court, the employer raised an objection that since U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Barhaj, Deoria is not an industry, therefore the reference referring the matter to the labour Court is not covered by the definition of industrial dispute and the reference should be answered against the workman. The labour Court after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced before it has arrived at the conclusion that employer U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is not covered by the definition of an industry and therefore Suresh Prasad Tripathi is not a workman, it therefore decided the preliminary objection raised by the employer in favour of the employer and held that the reference is not maintainable. Against this award, the petitioner-workman filed present writ petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman submitted that the view taken by the labour Court that U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted under the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 is not an industry, is not correct. Against this award, the petitioner-workman filed present writ petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman submitted that the view taken by the labour Court that U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted under the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 is not an industry, is not correct. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2002 (2) A.W.C. 1637 , Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another v. Prescribed Authority, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P., Meerut and another and 1997 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 830, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Anand Nagar, District Gorakhpur v. Industrial Tribunal (I) U.P. at Lucknow and another, wherein this Court has held that Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted under the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 is an industry and therefore the petitioner working with the employer is covered by the definition of the workman. In view of the legal preposition laid down by this Court in the cases, referred to above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The award of the labour Court dated 23rd November, 1984 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the labour Court with the direction to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of six months’ from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it. ————