JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. This petition raises a question as to whether a cooperative housing society can be arraigned as an industry in a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. This Court, in its recent judgment delivered in the case of Shantivan-II Co.Op.Hsg. Society vs. Manjula Govind Mahida W.P.No.360 of 2007 dated 21 June 2018, has held that a cooperative housing society which is an association of apartment or flat owners and renders services to these owners is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact that the cooperative housing society carries on a commercial activity of letting out its premises or earning out of the use of the premises by itself does not change the character of the cooperative housing society and make it an industry, if such commercial activity is a mere adjunct of the principal or main activities performed by the cooperative society. What the court has to consider in all these cases is the predominant nature of the activities carried on by the society. The ratio of Shantivan-II Co.Op.Hsg. Society's case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Here the commercial activity ascribed to the society is letting out of its community hall to members and nonmembers for functions. It certainly cannot be described as the principal or main activity of the society or an activity of a predominant nature within the meaning of the test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa 1978 (ii) SCC Page 213. The activity is a mere adjunct of the principal and main services or activities of the petitioner society. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent employee relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 1999 (1) Bom. The activity is a mere adjunct of the principal and main services or activities of the petitioner society. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent employee relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar vs. Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 1999 (1) Bom. C.R. 840 Relying on paragraphs 16 and 18 of that judgment, learned Counsel submits that no contract of personal service can be enforced except in the cases of (i) a public servant who is dismissed in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution, (ii) an employee covered by a labour statute applying to an industrial adjudicator under that statute and (iii) a statutory body acting in breach of obligations imposed by the statute in the matter of service of the employee. Relying on paragraph 13 of the judgment, learned Counsel submits that a claim of an employee cannot be entertained by a civil court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, it cannot even be entertained under Section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Learned Counsel submits that if disputes between terminated employees of a cooperative society on the one hand and the society on the other or about any of the service conditions of such employees cannot be entertained as industrial disputes, the employees would be rendered completely remedy-less. That is no reason for entertaining a complaint of an employee of a cooperative society under the MRTU & PULP Act or the Industrial Disputes Act, if the society cannot be termed as an 'industry' covered by these Acts. Absent such status, the society is like any other employer, whose contracts with his employees are to be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary law and not labour and industrial statutes. The judgment in Kannaded Sakhar Karkhana's case, does not require us to take any different view of the matter. 4. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the Labour Court at Mumbai and the revisional order of the Industrial Court, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 111 of 2009. 5. Since the complaint is rejected only on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Labour Court to entertain the complaint, all rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. 5. Since the complaint is rejected only on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Labour Court to entertain the complaint, all rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. It is open for the Respondent to agitate his grievances before any appropriate forum available to him in law. 6. At the request of learned Counsel for the Respondent, the society is directed not to take any coercive steps against the Respondent in pursuance of the present order for a period of four weeks from today.