Judgment :- The writ petitions are filed by two different workmen who were employed by the first respondent- Management. They raised a dispute relating to their non-employment. The matters were taken up by the second respondent Labour court as I.D.Nos.2/96 and 4/96. The Labour Court by a common award dated 11.06.1998 dismissed the Industrial Disputes. As against the same, the two petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petitions. 2. Both the writ petitions were admitted on 09.08.2000. Despite notice being served, the first respondent did not appear. 3. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary objection was raised that the first respondent is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act). It was contended that the institution was owned by an organisation which was substantially engaged in charitable or social or philanthrophic service. Before the Labour Court materials were also produced to show that they were funded by Social Welfare Department and therefore, they were not covered under the term industry. Unfortunately, before the Labour court, the provisions of Section 2(j) as amended by Central Act 46 of 1982 was pressed into service. Under the amended section 2(j)(4), it was indicated that institutions owned or managed by organisations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service are not covered by the term industry. But this section is yet to be notified by the Central Government. Therefore, the original section defining industry under Section 2(j) still continues to be in operation. 4. The said definition industry came to be considered by a 7 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa and others reported in 1978 (2) SCC 213 . In that case, the larger bench of the Supreme Court held that Industry means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen 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). 5. In the present case, the first respondent is only de-addiction centre to cure drug addicts, which is in the nature of a health institution. There is no reason why the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. 5. In the present case, the first respondent is only de-addiction centre to cure drug addicts, which is in the nature of a health institution. There is no reason why the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. Nothwithstanding the correct legal position, the Labour Court by its impugned Award held that it is not an industry on the basis of Issue No.1. Therefore, it rejected the case of the petitioner without granting any relief. 6. The impugned Awards in I.D.Nos.2/96 and 4/96 dated 11.06.1998 suffers from material irregularity. In as much as the Labour Court had erroneously held that the first respondent is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, the impugned award stands set aside. The matters are remitted back to the second respondent Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the matters are of the year 1996, the Labour Court shall give preference to the disposal of these matters, in any event shall dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petitions will partly stand allowed. No costs.