HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 16th November, 2004 in OP No. 12/2001, passed by the Industrial Tribunal -. ( 2 ) AN application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of its action of removing the respondent workman from service. In the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, after the pleadings were completed, a preliminary issue was framed on 2nd December, 2002 to the following effect: " Whether the management has held a valid and legal enquiry" (OPA)" ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that as the petitioner did not have any certified Standing Orders, the Model Industrial Employment Standing Orders were applicable to it which mandated that a workman shall be entitled to appear in person or to be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member. While arriving at a finding that the respondent workman was deprived of his valuable right of representation, the Tribunal held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated and accordingly the issue was decided against the petitioner. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the present writ petition, a Division Bench of this court has rendered a judgment in the case of Indraprastha Medical corporation Ltd. Vs. NCT of Delhi and others reported as 2006 (110) FLR 1176 wherein after examining the provisions of Section 2 (m) which defines "factory" as also Section 2 (k) of the Factories Act which defines " manufacturing process", it was held as under: "para 19: The main activity of a Hospital is to cure diseases and ailments and not to do washing, cleaning, generating, cold storage etc. These latter are only incidental activities. In other words, to determine whether an establishment is a factory or not under section 2 (m) of the Factories Act, we have to see what is the main activity which is being conducted in the establishment. If the main activity is of repairing, washing, cleaning, power generating, etc. then it will certainly be a factory, but not if that is only an incidental work. If the main activity is of repairing, washing, cleaning, power generating, etc. then it will certainly be a factory, but not if that is only an incidental work. Para 20: In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the main work of a Hospital is cleaning, washing, packing, oiling, generating power, etc. No doubt cleaning of the floor, washing of the linen, etc. has to be done in a Hospital so as to ensure that the Hospital remains free from infection. However, that is not the main function of a Hospital. They are only incidental activities to ensure proper cleanliness, etc. in a Hospital. Para 21: If we accept the submission of Mr. Prashant Bhushan then every establishment will have to be held to be a factory, because in every establishment there has to be washing and cleaning. Surely what was not the intention of the Legislature. Para 24: With respect, we cannot agree. As already stated above, the definition of "industrial establishment" in the Standing Orders Act is very different from that of "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the decision of the supreme Court interpreting the word "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to the interpretation of the words "industrial establishment" in the Standing Orders Act. " (emphasis added) ( 5 ) THIS court is bound by the aforesaid observations made by the Division bench wherein it has been held that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) are not applicable to hospitals. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the industrial adjudicator to decide the issue afresh. ( 6 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 10th August, 2007 for further proceedings. ( 7 ) THE writ petition as also the pending applications stand disposed of.