Judgment Alok Singh, J. Today, WPMS No. 2271 of 2010 is listed, however, learned counsel for the parties submitted that some writ petitions arising out of the same award being WPMS Nos. 2266, 1563, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270 & 2272 of 2010 are also pending disposal which could not be listed today, therefore, same may also be called and heard together. 2. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, all the above mentioned writ petitions were called from the Registry and were shown in the supplementary cause list. 3. Since in all the writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. To appreciate the controversy, facts of WPMS No. 2271 of 2010 are being taken up. Present writ petition is filed assailing the award dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar whereby learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workmen directing the employer to treat the workmen to be reinstated forthwith with the stipulation that workmen would be entitled for all the benefits of service from the date of passing of award. Learned counsel for the parties fairly submits that no relief for back wages was granted by the Labour Court. 5. Reference made to the Labour Court was - As to whether termination/retrenchment of workmen with effect from 08.10.2001 was illegal and if yes, what relief workmen were entitled for? 6. This is not in dispute that workmen were working with employer i.e. Education Institution as non teaching staff. This is also not in dispute that workmen have completed 240 days in 12 calendar month. It is also not in dispute that no compliance of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was made. 7. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner while referring to paragraph 9 of the writ petition has vehemently argued that employer/Education Institution is a minority religious and charitable institution, therefore, does not fall within the definition of Industry and thus, falls outside the scope of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and. 8. It is not denied that petitioner, herein, is an Inter College running Classes upto 12th Standard. It is not disputed that for imparting education to the students, petitioner Education Institution is charging tuition fees from the students. 8. It is not denied that petitioner, herein, is an Inter College running Classes upto 12th Standard. It is not disputed that for imparting education to the students, petitioner Education Institution is charging tuition fees from the students. Religious or charitable institution can be exempted from the definition of Industry, only when it is found that it does not involve in any business, trading, undertaking or manufacturing or service of any nature. 9. In the present case, since petitioner is imparting education to the students’ upto 12th standard and is collecting tuition fee from students, therefore, it falls within definition of Industry, as defined under Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is immaterial as to whether tuition fee collected by the Institution is being utilized for the charitable or religious purposes. 10. As per Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, no workman working with the Industry shall be retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 11. Undisputedly, no compliance of Section 6 N was made before retrenchment of the workmen, therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned award. Consequently, all the writ petition fail and are hereby dismissed. Award of the Labour Court is affirmed/upheld. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.