JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14-10-1997, passed by respondent No.2, Labour Court, contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner is a Research Institute established by Indian Council of Agricultural Research which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The institute is not engaged in any commercial or business activity, trade or manufacture. The functions of the institute are akin to an institution discharging governmental functions for the benefit of general public, society and the National. It is not producing and distributing services. Hence it is not an Industry. The respondent Nos. 3 to 39 were employed as class-IV in the institution. The respondents 3 to 39 raised an industrial disputes U/S 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court at Dehradun regarding the difference of the amount for extra work done by them. The disputes was referred to Labour Court. The disputes raised by the respondents was that they should be paid the emolument for over time work done by them for 1½ hours. The working hours of the workmen were 6 ½ hours, but extra work for 1½ hours was taken from them and they have not been paid for this extra work. 3. The employer/petitioner filed objection before the Labour Court to this effect that extra work was not taken from the workmen and as per order dated 23-9-1997 those workmen who had done extra work during the period 18-2-88 to 21-9-90, they would be compensated by compensatory leave and the workmen did not do extra work after 21.9.90. 4. The learned Labour Court after considering the material on record and hearing the parties passed impugned order dated 14-10-1997 and directed the petitioner/workman to make payment to the workmen for extra work taken from them during the period 1991 to 1994, the details of which has been given in the award. Besides this each of the workmen were also awarded cost of Rs. 5 00/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. The grounds taken in the petition are that the Labour Court has committed an error of law in entertaining the application U/S 33-C(2) of I.D. Act. Besides this each of the workmen were also awarded cost of Rs. 5 00/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. The grounds taken in the petition are that the Labour Court has committed an error of law in entertaining the application U/S 33-C(2) of I.D. Act. The petitioner is not an Industry, therefore, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit and alleged that the dispute relating minimum rates of wages only can be decided in proceeding U/S 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act and dispute relating to over time wage under Minimum Wages Act. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is fully covered under the definition of ‘Industry’ and this plea was not raised before the Labour Court. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition respondent Nos. 4, 5, 17, 25, 30, 32, 33, 37 and 39 have died and since no substitution application was moved after their death, hence this court vide order dated 8-10-2009, passed the order and the writ petition as against those respondents was abated. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. This fact is not disputed to the petitioner that the workmen had done extra work for 1½ hours during the period mentioned in the award. The learned Labour Court after considering the provision of Section 14 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, had issued direction to the petitioner to make payment wages of over time taken from the workmen. 11. So far as the plea taken by the petitioner that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Industry, this plea was not raised by the petitioner, before the Labour Court in its objection. On the other hand the specific case of the workmen is that the petitioner Institute comes within the definition of Industry U/S 2(J) of the I.D. Act in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements and further the learned Labour Court had passed the order after considering the provision of Section 14 of Minimum Wages Act. 12. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that in view of order dated 23-9-1997 issued by Indian Agricultural Research Council provision was made to compensate the workman by granting them compensatory leave for the extra work taken from them and they are not entitled for over time. 13. The submission of learned Standing Counsel is not accepted for the reason that the workmen in their objection before the Labour Court had raised the plea that they are entitled to get the payment of wages for over time work U/S 14 of the Minimum Wages Act. Further the facility of compensatory leave, if any was given for a particular period, and the said facility was not availed, the workmen cannot be deprived payment of wages for the over time done by them. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents/workmen had availed the facility of compensatory leave. 14. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court. 15. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.