JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.- In this matter challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 14-3-1991 of the Orissa High Court passed in OJC No. 1483 of 1985. Notice was issued to Madhusudan Sahu, respondent, the person concerned, indicating that the matter shall be disposed of at the notice stage. Despite presumptive service, no one appeared on his behalf. We heard only learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Special leave is granted.

3. The respondent, Madhusudan Sahu (hereafter referred as "Sahu") was engaged as an appraiser by Puri Urban Co-operative Bank, the appellant herein, pursuant to an advertisement dated January 10, 1978. As an appraiser his job was to be available in the Bank, when called, for performing the services of weighing and testing the gold ornaments offered to be pledged to the Bank to secure loans. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the appraisers commission (termed wages by the High Court) shall be 25 paise per hundred rupees of loan but in no case shall remuneration be less than Rs. 2/-per appraisal. Besides the said commission/ wages the appraiser could claim no other sum for his services. As stipulated Sahus services were terminable at any time. His services were terminated by the Bank on 27-8-1979. He successfully sought a reference from the Government to the Labour Court. The Labour Court went into the matter and vide Award dated March 27, 1985, set aside the order of termination terming it as illegal and unjustified, ordering Sahus reinstatement in service. He was held disentitled to back wages since those were not capable of a precise computation and involved an element of speculation. The appellant-Bank as well as Sahu approached the High Court of Orissa challenging correspondingly the Award of the Labour Court in so far as it had gone against their respective interest. The High Court affirmed the view of the Labour Court, which has given cause to the appellant-Bank to move this Court.

4. The High Court has taken the view, as did the Labour Court that Sahu is a worker as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on that basis alone entitled to reinstatement. The word workman has been defined therein to mean 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. That does not include inter alia persons employed in supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 / - per mensem etc. Due to the wide amplitude of the definition of the word workman the High Court endorsed the view of the Labour Court that Sahu was a workman and thus came within the definition, and was thus entitled to the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant may be a workman as commonly understood, but work of appraising in the context is partly manual, as goes the weighing part, and partly mental, as goes the appraising part, wholly or partially skilled and/ or technical and wages/ commission for that work may fall within the expression hire or reward. Still, it is maintained, that unless there was a jural relationship of master and servant between Sahu and the Bank, he could not be termed as a workman, for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It stands established that Industrial Law revolves on the axis of master and servant relationship and by a catena of precedents it stands established that the prima facie test of relationship of master and servant is the existence of the right in the master to supervise and control the work done by the servant (the measure of supervision and control apart) not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work. See in this regard D. C. Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264 at p. 268 and Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1958 SC 3