Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. The petition challenges the rejection of the reference by an award dated 17.7.1997. The Presiding Officer, VIII Labour Court, Mumbai, has rejected the Reference (IDA) No.724 of 1991 as he has held that the respondent Society was not an industry. 2. The brief facts involved in the present petition are as follows:- The petitioner drew the attention of the Labour Commissioner to the fact that she was not being given the benefits of labour legislations. Conciliation proceedings were held where the Society agreed to grant certain benefits to the petitioner. By letter dated 28.1.1991, the Society placed the petitioner on probation. That letter was opposed by the petitioner as she contended that she was being treated as a new employee although she had completed almost 10 years of service with the Society. In June, 1991, the petitioner’s services were terminated. She was not offered retrenchment compensation while terminating her services. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 22.3.1991 in respect of her termination from service. As the conciliation proceedings failed, a reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication on 29.8.1991. Pleadings were filed by the parties. The main contention raised in the written statement by the Society was that it was not an industry and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable. 3. Theevidence of both parties was led. The petitioner examined herself while the Manager of the Society was examined. The Labour Court, by the award, has held that the respondent Society which was a housing society is not an industry and, therefore, not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has proceeded to decide the dispute on merits as well in the event it was found housing society is an industry. On merits the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had not proved her case of having been employed with the Society for 10 years before she was issued the letter dated 28.1.1991. Thus the Labour Court dismissed the reference. 4. It is now well settled by a catena of judgments that a co-operative housing society is not an industry. On merits the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had not proved her case of having been employed with the Society for 10 years before she was issued the letter dated 28.1.1991. Thus the Labour Court dismissed the reference. 4. It is now well settled by a catena of judgments that a co-operative housing society is not an industry. In the case of Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v/s Workmen C/o. Indian Engineering and General Mazdoor, reported in 2002 (9) SCC 652 , the Supreme Court, after considering its judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v/s S.A. Rajappa, reported in 1978 L.I.C. 467, has observed that workmen engaged to provide service for members of a Society cannot be treated as "workmen" of the housing society as a housing society is not an "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shantaram Pandurang Jadhav & ors. v/s Kiran Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd., reported in 2007 III C.L.R. 418, has taken the view that even a society established for the commercial premises is not an industry. 6. The Labour Court has, on appreciation of the facts, held that the Society is not an industry. In my opinion, the Labour Court has given cogent reasons for arriving at this conclusion. There is, therefore, no need to interfere with the award of the Labour Court in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.