JUDGMENT

B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) THE respondent No. I was an employee of the appellant Corporation. By notice dated 1/9/1985, respondent No. 1s services were terminated by giving him one months notice.

(2) INDUSTRIAL dispute was raised and the two questions which were adjudicated by the Tribunal were: (1) Whether termination of services of the respondent was valid? and (2) What relief was he entitled to?

(3) IT was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 was not workman within the meaning of that expression occurring in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the appellant was that respondent No. 1 was in charge of one of three shifts of the work in the mill.

(4) IT was not in dispute that at the time of the termination of services of respondent No. 1 he was receiving Rs. 1185.00 per month by way of salary. The Tribunal recorded the evidence as well as took into consideration documentary evidence which were produced by the parties. On the basis of the evidence which was adduced before it, the Tribunal observed that:

"THE main duties of shri Rajeshwar Mahato were both supervisory and administrative in nature. In the instant case Shri Mahatos functions were mainly of a managerial nature. He had; control as well as supervision over the work of the jute mill workers working under him."

(5) THE Tribunal then referred to the evidence both oral and documentary. It dealt4 with the evidence of the O. P. W. 1 Jawahar Dubey and also with Exhibits G and G/I and observed that the said evidence and the Exhibit show that the respondent was a Preparing Assistant. While stating that the Tribunal would not go merely on the basis of the designation attached to an employee, and it was concerned with finding out as to what were the main duties performed by him, the Tribunal then referred to the evidence of the respondent himself as well as the other evidence and first observed that the respondent was really a supervisory staff and then ultimately it came to the conclusion that:

"FROM the above, it is clear that Shri Rajeshwar Mahato functioned in a managerial or administrative capacity also. In the light of the above discussion I hold that Shri Rajeshwar Mahato was not a workman. This point is decided accordingly."

(6) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion the Tribunal held that the Government Order of Reference was not maintainable in law.

(7) THE decision of the Tribunal was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The single Judge of the High Court referred to the definition of the word "workman" according to Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It also took note of the fact that the said definition had been amended and in place of Rs. 500.00 the figure of rs. 1600.00 had been substituted in relation to persons working in the supervisory capacity. This amendment was a State Amendment and the single Judge held that the State amendment would be applicable and as the respondent was drawing less than Rs. 1600.00 per month he had to be regarded as workman.

(8) THE single Judge did not make any observation with regard to the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent was mainly working in a managerial or administrative capacity. In appeal, the Division Bench also, while upholding the decision of the single Judge did not make any observation with regard to the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, namely, that the respondent was not a workman inasmuch as he was mainly carrying on the duties which were administrative or managerial in nature.

(9) SECTION 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:

"(S) workman means 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 emp