Judgment Prabha Sridevan, J. The appellant claims to be the Assistant Cook in the hostel where he was allegedly working from 1972. He claimed that his termination was illegal. The Labour Court accepted his case. Against that, the management of the school filed the writ petition. 2. The learned Judge in the writ petition held that, "13. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not an industry. 14. The Labour Court discussed the above issue as No.1. The object of the petitioner was discussed in detail and it is noted that the object of the Samithi to educate the Harijan boys and girls in various crafts and handicrafts. Since it is mentioned in one of the objectives that the petitioner also can entertain a trade activity through sales agent for the benefit of the petitioner, the labour court came to a conclusion that the above judgment is not applicable. 15. The labour court did not explain why and how the above judgment is not applicable. When this court has clearly held that from the objectives of the society if it is found that the income of the trust has to be spent for charitable purpose and hence it cannot be treated as an industry and the present working with such society is not a workman. There was no discussion by the labour court on this aspect. 16. The judgment cited above is almost a direct judgment. In the above judgment, the management of K.R.N. Estate a trust has also having its own objections. 17. Since the above judgment is applicable in the instant case, the court below should have gone in detail. 18. Apart from that when the very appointment of the petitioner is only on temporary basis and when the management has closed the hostel and also there is no cooking activity with the management, it is absurd to give direction to the management to reinstate the workman as a cook and continue him in service and extract the work. There is no question of any direction for reinstatement and extracting the work. 19. On behalf of the workman, the appointment order is not produced. 20. It may be fact that he must be working continuously from 1972. There is no question of any direction for reinstatement and extracting the work. 19. On behalf of the workman, the appointment order is not produced. 20. It may be fact that he must be working continuously from 1972. When the management has issued termination order on 17.08.1991 on the ground that the hostel is closed and the service of the workman are no more required, there should not have been any direction for reinstatement. No doubt, there is charge memo dated 06.08.1991 against the workman. But when the hostel itself is closed and the same fact has been established from the evidence of the workman, the labour court ought not to have given the direction for reinstatement and payment of backwages. 21. In this case, the workman has been examined as W.W.1 in the cross examination was admitted that the hostel was closed due to unrest by the students. This fact was noted by the labour court while answering the point No.2 at para 7. Thereafter, labour court gives its own finding that the closure of the hostel does not mean that the workman has accepted the closure once for all so saying the Court has not accepted the case of the first respondent that the hostel is closed. It is perverse finding. It requires interference by this Court. The labour Court gives its own finding and unreasoning in para 8 that it is highly impossible for every student to cook individually and the cook is required. All these comments are uncalled for. When there is no hostel it is absurd to contend that there should be cook for cooking in the hostel." 3. This matter has been posted on several days and as early as 28. 2008, the counsel for the appellant has been absent and he has been absent ever since and therefore, we do not think it is necessary to keep this matter pending endlessly. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent on an earlier occasion and he submitted that even the appellant had admits that the hostel is not in existence and there is no cooking done in the hostel. We are not inclined to interfere with the reasoning in the judgment of the learned Single Judge without any material warranting such interference. 4. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.