Petitioner at the relevant time was Head Lineman in the Electricity Department under the Government of Manipur. He was made to retire on superannuation wef 28.2.94 on attaining the age of 58 years. Being aggrieved, the petition has been filed. 2. I have heard Mr. L. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Madhuchandra, learned Government Advocate. 3. It is contended by Mr. L Nandakumar that retiring the petitioner on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years was clearly erroneous, because the petitioner being Head Lineman was workman within the definition of FR 56 (b), and as such, he ought to have been retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. The sole question that requires to be determined in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is workman or not. 4. The claim of petitioner is on the basis of FR 56. Clauses (a) and (b) of FR 56 reads: "FR 56. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. (b) A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Note - In this clause, a workman means a highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work-charged department." 5. Whether an employee is a workman or not within the meaning of clause (b) or FR 56 has to be considered with reference to the nature of his work. In order to qualify to be a workman, he must be both a workman and artisan of some kind. The word 'artisan' has been defined by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty & others, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 470 as under: "The word 'artisan', therefore, has to be understood in common parlance in a wider sense as an art or an artist or one employed in any of the industrial arts or produces an article of commercial value or utility with manual dexterity, either by manual labour or with the help of tools or machine and brings into existence a product for sale or service. An element of not only creative would be applied to bring into existence an article or commercial goods with dexterity employing manual or technical labour or with the aid of tools etc. However, it is not exhaustive. Each case must be considered on its own facts and attendant circumstances to find whether the workman is an artisan." 6. Now let us examine whether the petitioner is a workman or not in terms of FR 56 (b), and in the light of definition of artisan given by the Supreme Court. To answer this question, it is essential to refer to the duties performed by the petitioner. Duties performed by the petitioner is set out in paragraph 2 of writ petition as under : "2. That, the duties of a Head Lineman is to supervise the works of Lineman and Assistant Lineman. He used to supervise and takes up works of laying electric lines and putting electric poles for the purpose of transmission and supply of electric energy to the consumers along with lineman and Assistant Lineman under the instructions of Section Officer, Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers who are incharge of the works. The works performed by the Head Lineman are mainly manual. By virtue of his length of service a Head Lineman he acquired skill in laying electric lines for transmission and supply to the consumers and as such the nature and duty of a Head Lineman is purely of a workman." 7. The duties performed by the petitioner as set out in paragraph 2 of the writ petition does not confirmed with the note appended to clause (b) of FR 56. As already said, in order to claim benefit of FR 56 (b), he must be both a workman and artisan of some kind. By no stretch of imagination, the work performed by the petitioner as set out in paragraph 2 of the writ petition can be said to be an artisan of highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan. 8. This apart, section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defined workman and excludes: (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. 9. This apart, section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defined workman and excludes: (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. 9. As quoted above, the duties of Head Lineman is set out in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. As would appear from the nature of duty, the duties performed by the petitioner was in supervisory capacity. Also from the Annexure D/l annexed in the counter of the respondent 1 and 2, the last Pay Certificate of the petitioner shows that he was drawing an amount of Rs.3,167/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred sixty seven). 10. For the reasons aforestated, petitioner cannot said to be a Workman of highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition, and the same is dismissed. However, without costs. 11. Mr. L Nandakumar strenuously urged that the respondent department, namely, the Electricity Department used to produce electric energy by diesel generating sets, they also used to procure electric energy from the Loktak Hydro Electric Power Corporation on payment of tariffs and sold to consumers and to other industries on payment of tariffs fixed and determined by the department, and as such, the Department of Electricity under the Government is an industrial organisation. As already said, the sole question that arises for determination is, whether the petitioner is a workman or not. Therefore, whether the Electricity Department is industry or not is not concerned in this writ petition; He has also referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court pronounced under the Industrial Disputes Act. We are not concerned with the Industrial Disputes Act in this writ petition and need to refer to those decisions does not arises. Petition dismissed. No costs.