ORDER This writ petition is directed against the award dated 1st July, 2006 in I.D. No. 74 of 2001 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. 2. Petitioner claiming to be a workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia alleging that, she was appointed by the respondent-Association in the year 1998 and she was assured payment of Rs. 2,500/- plus other allowances per month and her service was confirmed on 24-5-1999. Thereafter on 5-3-2001 she was informed by the respondent that, her services are not required by it from 4-4-2001 on the ground of financial constrain. Refusal of work was challenged before the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The main issue that was raised before the Labour Court was: "Whether the workman is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act?" The Labour Court on consideration of facts held that .the respondent is not an industry and rejected the dispute. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent is an Association engaging in various activities as per the Memorandum of Association. It also undertakes professional, technical and management consultation service and also undertakes research work, thus it is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. In this regard she relied on a judgment in the matter of Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association v State of Bombay and Others1 and submitted that the Association which undertakes research work is also an industry and the Apex Court in the said decision held that the said Association is an industry. She also submitted that the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act includes providing of service is also an industry. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is only an Association to promote the development of Small Scale Industries and consultancy is done with the members of the Association and no research work is carried on by the Association, it is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act nor are they providing any services to individual industry except making meetings or conducting courses. It is also submitted that the industries are individually governed by themselves and the Association has no control over them. It is also submitted that the industries are individually governed by themselves and the Association has no control over them. Section 2(j) reads as under: "(j) "Industry" means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between any employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not.- xxx xxx (8) any activity, being a profession practised by an individual or body or individuals, if the number of persons employed by the individual or body of individuals in relation to such profession is less than ten; or..." Reading of Section 25(j) it is clear that, even in case where services are provided the said services attract the character of an industry. However, in this case what is required to be seen is as to whether there is any service provided to the members of the Association by the Association. The Labour Court found that, the nature of the work carried on by the respondent does not constitute an industry and in this, regard it relied on a decision in Management of Som Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Limited v Workmen, C/o Indian Engineering and General Mazdoor2 and observed that: "When personal services are rendered to the members of a society and that society of apartments is constituted only for the purposes of those members to engage the services of such employees, activity cannot be treated as an industry nor are they workmen" . 5. Learned Counsel. for the petitioner submitted that the decision relied on by the Labour Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Ahmedabad Textile Industry's case referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The object of the Association in that case was: "to establish a textile research institute for the purpose of carrying on research and other scientific work in connection with the textile trade or industry and other trade and industry allied therewith or necessary thereto. The object of the Association in that case was: "to establish a textile research institute for the purpose of carrying on research and other scientific work in connection with the textile trade or industry and other trade and industry allied therewith or necessary thereto. The cost of maintaining the Association was met partly by members and partly by grants: from Government and other sources. The object of the said Association was to establish, equip and maintain laboratories, workshops or factories and conduct and carry on experiments; to prepare, edit, print, publish, issue, acquire and circulate books, papers, periodicals etc., and to establish, form and maintain museums, libraries and collections of literature, statistics, scientific data and other information relating to the industry and to disseminate the same by means of reading papers, delivery of lectures, giving of advice and the appointment of advisory officers; to employ or retain skilled, professional or technical advisers or workers in the connection with the objects of the Association on payment of such fees or remuneration as might be though expedient". The nature of work that was considered in the said decision is material services which was imparted by the Association by establishing an institution. In this regard even research work is to the benefit of the members of the Association and the cost in maintaining the Association is made partly by the members and partly by grant of Government and other sources. The object was to establish research institute' and effective assistance to manufacturing of textile and in this regard the Apex Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the said case has held that it is an industry but no such materials are available in this case, except the memorandum of Association which also does not show such activities so as to constitute the same as industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. The service that is stated in the memorandum of Association is consultancy, giving personal opinion to the members and it does not provide for any research work. Even formation of the Association of Members itself cannot be an industry. Hence I do not find any illegality or error in the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.