ORDER : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. He fairly invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 07/11/2017 (Reported in 2018 (1) Cur LR 1029 (Guj)) rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1844 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No. 2290 of 2017 wherein the Court has considered the issue of whether the petitioner who is Anganwadi Worker under the Integrated Child Development Scheme and was being paid honorarium be considered as the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. The Court has held as under : “5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein was working as Anganwadi Worker under the Integrated Child Development Scheme and was being paid honorarium and even her services were not full time service. That the appellant raised Industrial Dispute challenging her discontinuation as Anganwadi Workers holding inter alia that her termination as Anganwadi Worker is in breach of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. That considering and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameerbi and Ors. (supra) and the direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat (2011 (3) Cur LR 733 (Guj)) (supra), the Labour Court has rejected the reference on the ground that the appellant cannot be said to be workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The aforesaid has been confirmed by the learned single Judge by impugned judgment and order. Therefore, short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether Anganwadi Workers who are paid honorarium and who are appointed under the particular benevolent scheme known as ICDS, can be said to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the aforesaid issue is directly covered against the appellant in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat (supra). 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the aforesaid issue is directly covered against the appellant in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat (supra). In the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat, it is specifically observed and held by the Division Bench of this Court that the Anganwadi Worker under the ICDS Scheme, cannot be said to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such in the case of Ameerbi and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that post of Anganwadi Worker are not statutory post. That they have been created in terms of the scheme. Even considering object of the scheme, ICDS programme/scheme under which Anganwadi workers are appointed and paid honorarium cannot be said to be "Industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act. That ICDS Scheme has been formulated in pursuance of the National Policy for Children. As such, it is a benevolent scheme evolved to make coordinated effort for an integrated programme for betterment of the children, more particularly, in the rural area and to provide additional support for proper health care education, nutrition and social well being of children. Under the circumstances, when considering the object of the ICDS Scheme under which Anganwadi workers were appointed under ICDS Scheme cannot be said to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, as such the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the Reference and same has been rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge by impugned order. 6.0. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vidya (2011 Lab IC 2375 (Bom)) (supra) is concerned, we are not agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court. As such, decision of the Bombay High Court shall not be binding to this Court. There is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat (supra) taking a view that Anganwadi Workers, cannot be said to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act." 3. As such, decision of the Bombay High Court shall not be binding to this Court. There is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patdi Taluka Panchayat (supra) taking a view that Anganwadi Workers, cannot be said to be "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act." 3. Facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court as in the present case also the petitioner was working as a Anganwadi Worker with respondent No. 1 from 24/01/1985 and performing the duty as such and her services were terminated without issuance of notice. 4. The labour court by judgment and order dated 31/07/2017 in Reference (LCD) No. 28 of 2013, rejected the same relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (2) LLN 136 : 2008 (1) SCC 975 (sic) in case of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Amirbibi holding that the petitioner who is Anganwadi Worker is not having any civil post and, therefore, not entitled for the benefit of minimum wages. It was further held that the petitioner was working under the ICDS programme and, therefore, she is not entitled for minimum wages and the said programme does not fall under the definition of industry. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it cannot be said that the labour court has committed any error for which any interference is called for by this Court. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.