ORDER : Satish K. Agnihotri, J. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 05.04.1989 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal, was rejected. The petitioner further challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 28.09.1992 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, whereby the petitioner was directed to regularize the services of the members of the respondent No. 2/Union and to grant service benefits viz. salary, gratuity, pension leave etc. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition before the Industrial Court for regularization of their services. On receipt of notice from the Industrial Court, the petitioner filed its reply stating that the respondent No. 2 was not a recognized Union. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner on 05.09.1989 stating that it was a registered cooperative society and for the employees of the society, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has framed rules u/s 55(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 which was applicable to the employees of the petitioner. Thus, the reference should not have been entertained by the Industrial Court. The said preliminary objection was rejected by impugned order dated 05.04.1989 (Annexure P/9) and finally, by award dated 28.09.1992, the Industrial Court directed the petitioner to regularize the services of the members of the respondent No. 2, as aforestated. 2. Shri Sharma further submits that the petitioner is not an Industry therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') would not be attracted in its case. The impugned orders suffer with gross illegality as the provisions of the rules framed u/s 55(1) of the Act, 1960 is applicable to the employees of the petitioner, as the petitioner is a Cooperative Society. Shri Sharma lastly submits that the Unit of the petitioner/Society is closed due to heavy loss and various unavoidable circumstances. 3. On the other hand, Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a Cooperative Society, however, the Society is running a factory namely Rice Bran Oil Mill, which is an admitted position in this case. 3. On the other hand, Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a Cooperative Society, however, the Society is running a factory namely Rice Bran Oil Mill, which is an admitted position in this case. Thus, the provisions of the Act, 1947 are fully applicable in this case and the Industrial Court has rightly passed the orders, as aforestated and there is no illegality or infirmity, warranting any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. The Unit where the members of the respondent No. 2 were working, indisputably was an industrial establishment, as defined u/s 2(ka) of the Act, 1947. For ready reference, section 2(ka) reads as under : 2(ka) "Industrial establishment or undertaking" means an establishment or undertaking in which any industry is carried on: Provided that where several activities are carried on in an establishment or undertaking and only one or some of such activities is or are an industry or industries, then- (a) if any unit of such establishment or undertaking carrying on any activity, being an industry, is severable from the other unit or units of such establishment or undertaking; such unit shall be deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or undertaking; (b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or each of the other activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof is not severable from and is, for the purpose of carrying on, or aiding the carrying on of, such predominant activity or activities, the entire establishment or undertaking or, as the case may be, unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial establishment or undertaking; 6. The 'workman' has been defined u/s 2(s) of the Act, 1947 as 'any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.... 7. This is a dispute between the workman and the management of the petitioner/Unit, thus, the provisions of the Act, 1947 are applicable in the case. 8. 7. This is a dispute between the workman and the management of the petitioner/Unit, thus, the provisions of the Act, 1947 are applicable in the case. 8. On perusal of the impugned award passed by the Industrial Court, it is apparent that the Unit of the petitioner/Society is a factory where more than 150 persons were employed. The witness of the respondent No. 2 as well as the petitioners were examined and cross examined in which some of the members of the respondent No. 2 have stated that they had been working for more than 12 years. It was further held that the members of the respondent No. 2 had worked for more than 240 day in each year, and it was also proved that the work taken by the petitioner was of a regular and continuous nature, thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. So far as applicability of the Act, 1947 is concerned, may be the petitioner/Unit is owned and managed by the Cooperative Society, but the functions carried on by the Unit clearly falls under the industry, thus, there is no doubt that the provisions of the Act, 1947 is applicable in the instant case. 9. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.