S. K. SEN, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (torn) dated 22nd November, 1991 wherein the Tribunal has (torn) a finding that the petitioner was mainly employed (torn) managerial or administrative capacity and was not (torn) workman and as such the Government order of reference (torn) not maintainable in law. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the Tribunal committed an apparent error in making the aforesaid finding. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Report Clerk on 4th December, 1974 by M/s. Birla Jute Industries Ltd, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) in its Balley Jute Mills, Unit in the section (Broad Loom) on a salary of Rs. 325/-per month. ( 4 ) IT has also been alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not given any letter of appointment at the time of his appointment or thereafter but his name was entered in the Master Roll of the Company and he received all benefits as a workman of the Company. ( 5 ) IT has also been submitted by the petitioner that in the Company between the Officers and/or Departmental Incharge there was another class of employees known as Supervisor who might be 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as amended depending upon the nature of duties performed by and wages drawn by such person. The service condition of the Supervisors were in similar terms as employees of the Company other than those covered under the standing orders. ( 6 ) IT has been submitted by the petitioner that due to his sincere and meritorious service the petitioner was promoted to the designation of Supervisor in March, 1976. The service of the petitioner was however terminated on and from 1st September, 1985 vide letter No. TKC/202 dated 28. 8. 85 issued by the Factory Manager. ( 7 ) IT has also been submitted by the petitioner that at all material times he was getting a salary of Rs. The service of the petitioner was however terminated on and from 1st September, 1985 vide letter No. TKC/202 dated 28. 8. 85 issued by the Factory Manager. ( 7 ) IT has also been submitted by the petitioner that at all material times he was getting a salary of Rs. 1,185-per month and was working as an Assistant in Preparing Department of the said Mill and was covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the schemes framed thereunder and this E. S. I. Card No. was 4968067. ( 8 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he performed both clerical and manual work along with other workmen and his duties included inter alia, carrying bobbins, helping the weavers by distributing bobbins when there was a shortfall to repair thread and also supervise the works of other workmen. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he had no authority to hold any disciplinary proceedings against any worker, could not grant any leave independently and he had no authority to control the manner of execution of work by other workers. The work assigned to and performed by him did not require any initiative, control or command. ( 9 ) IT has also been submitted by the petitioner that as he had an unblemish record of service and his termination of service was affected without any valid reasons and therefore he and his family was put to serious financial trouble. The petitioners apart from making verbal representations to the company by his letter dated 18th September, 1985 to the Company prayed inter alia for reinstatement in service with full back wages and all benefits, failing which he will be constrained to raise an Industrial Dispute. ( 10 ) SINCE the petitioner's representation went unheeded, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute and conciliation proceeding also followed which had no effect and accordingly Industrial Dispute raised under section 10 read with section 2a was referred to 8th Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal for adjudication. The issue referred to the Tribunal was as follows ; "whether the termination of service of Shri Rajeshwar Mahato was justified. To what relief, if any, is he entitled?" ( 11 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. The issue referred to the Tribunal was as follows ; "whether the termination of service of Shri Rajeshwar Mahato was justified. To what relief, if any, is he entitled?" ( 11 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. R. N. Das, learned Advocate for respondent Company that the aforesaid findings of the Industrial Tribunal were made after considering the oral and documentary evidence and as such, the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with such findings of the Industrial Tribunal. ( 12 ) IT has been further submitted that the writ court cannot sit as a court of Appeal and take a different view on the finding which was arrived at by the Tribunal after considering the evidences on record. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions. i)Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishna reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 at para 7. ii)state of Andhra Pradesh v. C. V. Rao reported in AIR 1975 SC 2151 . ( 13 ) MR. Das has further submitted that when a preliminary issue is raised before the Tribunal as to whether there is an Industrial Dispute which the Tribunal can adjudicate, it is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the issue first. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of Management of Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. The Workers reported in AIR 1963 SC 569 . ( 14 ) MR. Das has further submitted that in the instant case the Company in its written statement has raised an issue that since Rejeshwar Mahato was not a workman as defined in section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the order of Reference is not maintainable. On this issue evidences were led by both the parties, upon consideration of evidence, Tribunal found that Rejeshwar Mahato was not a workman and as such the order of Reference was not maintainable and that such a finding should not be reopened in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) MR. Das has also submitted that on merits of the case the company gave evidence which established that there were cogent reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner Shri Rameshwar Mahato. The company acted bonafide and offered to pay his legal dues. ( 15 ) MR. Das has also submitted that on merits of the case the company gave evidence which established that there were cogent reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner Shri Rameshwar Mahato. The company acted bonafide and offered to pay his legal dues. Such legal dues with interest as on date amounts to about Rs. 65,000/-Although petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 1. 9. 85 and Industrial Tribunal by its Award dated 22. 11. 91 has rejected the order of Reference, Rajeshwar Mahato is occupying the Company's quarter (furnished) with electricity without payment of any rent and electricity charges for the last ten years. If Rajeshwar Mahato vacates the quarter the Company will immediately pay him the legal dues which was already offered by the Company. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to him, the application should be dismissed. ( 17 ) THE only question raised in this case was whether the petitioner was a Workman so as to be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and if the reference was maintainable? ( 18 ) THE relevant portion or the Award records as under :"in his deposition p. w. 1 Shri Rajeshwar Mahato has deposed that at the time of his termination of service in September, 1985 his salary was Rs. 1185/- per month. He used to work along the workers. He used to carry bobbins and helped the weavers by distributing bobbins where there was a shortfall. He has further deposed that he used to repair thread in case of wreckage of the same. He also supervised the work of the workers. He read upto I. Sc. The information sheet of this first party was produced by the Company and his signature on it has been marked ext. A He has further said that he read in Jagdam College, Chapra, Bihar University. In his information sheet he wrote that he did not work anywhere before joining Birla Jute Mills. He used to pay house rent to the Company @ Rs. 23/- per month for using the staff quarter of the Company at Bally. The worker who used to work under him used to get H. R. A. The Company gave him quarter with furniture. He was confronted by the Company with one unpaid wage pay slip which is Ext. D. He has admitted the signature above the works 'in-charge' as to be his. The worker who used to work under him used to get H. R. A. The Company gave him quarter with furniture. He was confronted by the Company with one unpaid wage pay slip which is Ext. D. He has admitted the signature above the works 'in-charge' as to be his. There his designation is Incharge of Spinning -3 a Department of Bally Jute Mills. He has further admitted his signature above the words "dept/shift In-Charge" in the leave pass issued by him in favour of a workman named Taman on 10. 8. 83. This signature has been marked Ext. D/1. He has admitted that he put his signature which is Ext. D/1 as "shift in-Charge". In his leave application Ext. E, he had written his designation as 'pre-Asstt. of Preparing Deptt. " In his application for leave dated 16. 4. 85 which is Ext. E/1 he has shown his designation as Preparing Assistant of Preparing Department. In the staff Pan sheets of the Company for June, 1985 (Ext. G) and for July, 1985 (Ext. G/1) his designation has been given as Preparing Assistant. He also received pay for August, 1985 and his designation in that pay sheet for August 1985 (Ext. G/2) has also been shown as Preparing Assistant. His last pay was Rs. 1185/- per month. The Company has filed a list of the Supervisors and administrative staff who had been released from the Company's service on and after 1/9/85 for the survival of the mills. 32 names appear in this list which is Ext. H. The name of Rajeswar Mahato appears against Sri. No. 16 of this list. There his designation has been given as Shift Incharge of Preparing Department. According to this Exhibit, oral evidence led on behalf of the Company by O. P. W. 2 /26 supervisory and administrative staff resigned from the service, one retired from service on 1. 9. 85 and three were released by the Company. Rajeshwar Mahato is one of the three members of the staff who was released by the Company. The resignation letters of the members of the staff concerned are mentioned in this list under Ext. J. have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. J series. The grounds taken by the persons who resigned voluntarily are not similar in nature. Some expressed their medical unfitness and some expressed their other difficulties in leaving the services under the Company. The resignation letters of the members of the staff concerned are mentioned in this list under Ext. J. have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. J series. The grounds taken by the persons who resigned voluntarily are not similar in nature. Some expressed their medical unfitness and some expressed their other difficulties in leaving the services under the Company. The Company has intended to show by production of the list under Ext. H. and the relevant resignation letters submitted by the staff concerned that the workman concerned i. e. Rajeshwar Mahato was in fact a supervisory and administrative staff of the Company. He has also tried to show through this document that the condition of the company in the relevant period was not good. Again PW1 Rajeshwar Mahato has deposed that the Company used to deduct from his monthly emoluments sums on account of provident fund @ 10% of his earnings. It was for contributory provident fund. Clerks, officers and supervisors of the Company contribute to the provident fund account in the above rate. He has further stated that he is not in the know that in case of workmen under the Company provident fund is deducted @ 8. 33% only. Be that as it may he has admitted in his evidence that he used to pay house rent to the company @ Rs. 23/-p. m. for using the staff quarter of the company at Bally. The workman who worked under him used to get house rent allowance. The company provided him furnished quarters. In this respect O. P. W. 2 Shyam Sundar Vyas has deposed that bally Jute Mills provides the workman with quarters. Certain percentage of the wages is granted as house rent allowance to the workman as per existing rules for allowances for the workmen. Supervisory staff do not get house rent allowance as per that provisions or rule. On the contrary supervisory staff occupies quarters under payment of rent which is deducted from the salary bill. The quarters of the supervisory staff are furnished. But the quarters of the workman are unfurnished. The mills deduct such amount for allotment of furniture to the supervisory staff in their quarters. Rajeshwar Mahato was occupying the quarter as supervisory staff and still he is occupying the same. The Standing Orders of the Jute Mills are not applicable to the supervisory staff of the mill. But the quarters of the workman are unfurnished. The mills deduct such amount for allotment of furniture to the supervisory staff in their quarters. Rajeshwar Mahato was occupying the quarter as supervisory staff and still he is occupying the same. The Standing Orders of the Jute Mills are not applicable to the supervisory staff of the mill. Shri Mahato was enjoying the leave as per leave rule orders for the supervisory staff and not for the workman of the mills. Through his evidence the company intended to show that Shri Rajeswar Mahato was working as a supervisory administrative staff under the company for which he had been given the perquisities which were not given to the workmen of the mills. " ( 19 ) TO appreciate the question involved it is necessary to consider the definition workman as provided in section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as amended. "section 2 (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 employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an Industrial Dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person (i)who is subject to the Air Force Act. 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act 1957 (62 of 1957) or (ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employees of a prison : or (iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensene 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. " ( 20 ) CLAUSE IV of the original section was amended and included persons working in supervisory capacity and persons drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500/- per month were excluded. But now, the figure of Rs. 500/- has been raised to Rs. 1600/ -. " ( 20 ) CLAUSE IV of the original section was amended and included persons working in supervisory capacity and persons drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500/- per month were excluded. But now, the figure of Rs. 500/- has been raised to Rs. 1600/ -. This substitution has been made by section 2 (s) of the West Bengal Amending Act, 1984 with effect from 21. 8. 84 which is set out herein below :-"who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, 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". ( 21 ) THE Tribunal has referred to the judgment and decision in the case of Justiniano Augusto De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca and; Narain Ramchandra Poi (dead) by L. Rs. v. Vassudeva Pundolica Salcar reported in 1979 SCC (3) 47 and particularly to paragraph 11 at page 51 which is as follows :-"article 254 (1) of the Constitution prescribed that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then subject to the provisions of Clause 2, the law by Parliament whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of such State, or as the case may be, the existing law shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. " ( 22 ) RELYING upon the said findings of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held inter alia as follows :-"if the relevant provision to wit, Clause IV of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Act, 1947 as amended by amendment by section 2 of the Act 14 of 1947 by West Bengal Act XXX of 1980 is found to be repugnant to the Clause IV as substituted by the Central Legislature, Shri Rajeswar Mahato is to be treated as a workman, Assent of the President to W. B. Act XXX of 1980 was first published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary on the 2nd September, 1980. Clause IV of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amended or substituted by the amending Act 46 of 1984 with effect from 21. 8. 84. As it has been mentioned before in Clause IV previously persons employed in supervisory capacity drawing exceeding Rs. 500/- per month was excluded from category of workman. But now the figure of Rs. 500/- has been raised to Rs. 1600/ -. The amending Act 46 of 1982 which Clause IV of section 2 (s) has been amended by the Central Legislature is posterior to the West Bengal Act XXX of 1980". ( 23 ) IN my view, the Industrial Tribunal Committed an error in law in making a finding that the petitioner is not a workman on the facts of the case, simply because the workman was entrusted with some form of supervisory work, he might not cause to be a workman. In this connection, the judgment and decision in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chakko reported in AIR 1964 SC 1522 may be taken note of. ( 24 ) IN the aforesaid decision it was held that there is a distinction between accountants who are really officers and accountants who are merely senior clerks with supervisory duties. Consideration of the evidence on the record as regards the duties actually performed by a particular workman may lead to the conclusion that he was merely a senior clerk, doing mainly clerical duties, and going by the designation accountant and was in reality a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and doing an element of supervisory work. Such a person, therefore, does not cause to be a workman on his being appointed as an accountant. ( 25 ) IN the instant case also from the nature of duties allotted to the petitioner it appears that he was merely a senior clerk and doing mainly clerical duties and was in reality a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and doing an element of supervisory work. ( 26 ) IN the instant case admittedly the petitioner's salary was Rs. 1185/- per month and since the Industrial Disputes Act was amended with effect from 21. 8. 84 wherein instead of Rs. 500/-, the figure has been raised to Rs. ( 26 ) IN the instant case admittedly the petitioner's salary was Rs. 1185/- per month and since the Industrial Disputes Act was amended with effect from 21. 8. 84 wherein instead of Rs. 500/-, the figure has been raised to Rs. 1600/- for the purpose of bringing the supervisory personnel within the category of workman, there is no reason not to hold the petitioner as a workman. His name was also in the ESI Card. ( 27 ) IN my view, the interpretation as made by the Tribunal relating to the repugnancy of the West Bengal Act in relation to the West Bengal Amendment made in 1980 in relation to the amending Act does not appear to be correct. It also appears to me that the Tribunal wrongly applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Justiniano August De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicante Da Fonescu and Narain Ramchandra Poi (dead) By L. R. s v. Vassudeva Pundolion Salcar reported in 1979 (3) SCC 47 in the instant case. ( 28 ) IN fact the question of repugnancy of the State Law in the instant case does not arise. The position has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. Shukla (R. K.) and another reported in 1969 LLJ (2) 728. The relevant portions of the Judgment as appears at page 731 and 732 of the said report is set out herein below :"some argument was advanced before us that in determining matters relating to the award of retrenchment compensation, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply. The question is academic, because on the points in controversy between the parties, the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are substantially the same. We may, however, briefly refer to this argument since, relying upon the judgment of this court to be presently noticed counsel for the workman instated that section 22c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act alone, may apply. "after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Dominion Parliament, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted by the provincial legislature. The scheme of two Acts is substantially the same. "after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Dominion Parliament, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted by the provincial legislature. The scheme of two Acts is substantially the same. Chapter V-A relating to lay off and retrenchment was added in the Industrials Disputes Act by Act 43 of 1953. From time to time amendments were made in the provisions of the Act. The State law will be invalid only if it is repugnant to the Union law, whether prior or subsequent to it in point of time. The repugnancy that has to be found is the repugnancy in the actual provisions of the two laws and not with regard to the subject matter of the two laws. The proper term is whether effect can be given to the provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together. The expression "repugnant' literally means 'inconsistent with'. Etymologically things are inconsistent when they cannot stand together at the same time; and one law is inconsistent with another law when the command or power or provisions of one law conflicts directly with each other. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the company that a State law is not inconsistent with Union law, if it is possible to obey the State law without disobeying the Union law, and that clause (1) of Article 254 of the Constitution will have no application if the State law in its pith and substance relates to matter in List II of the Constitution and there is no need to invoke a Concurrent power even if the State law incidentally touches upon same item in the concurrent list of the Constitution, the State law then is repugnant to an existing law of Parliament. The learned Advocate for the company has cited some other decisions of the Supreme Court and some High Courts in this connection. ( 29 ) IT appears that West Bengal State amendment was made by West Bengal State Act XXX of 1980 with a view to widen the scope of the definition of workmen and bring more persons with the purview of the said Act so that they may get the benefit of the Act and be treated as workmen as defined under the Act by substituting the figure 'rs. 500' as provided under the Central Act to 'rs. 1600". 500' as provided under the Central Act to 'rs. 1600". Since, however, the Central Act was subsequently amended in 1984 the law made by Parliament clearly widens the scope of the definition further and the Central Act should apply in the field ( 30 ) THE judgment and decision in the case of Workmen v. M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 may be taken note of in this connection. In paragraph 35 of the said judgment at page 820 of the said report the Supreme Court inter alia held and observed as follows:-"35 : We cannot accept the extreme contentions advanced on behalf of the workmen and the employers, we are aware that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficent rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on the section, it follows that the construction which further policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the employees has to be preferred. " ( 31 ) ACCORDINGLY the interpretation made by the Tribunal on the question of application of West Bengal State Amendment does not appear to be correct. ( 32 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to me that the Tribunal committed an apparent error in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. ( 33 ) ACCORDINGLY in my view, it is a fit case where writ court should interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Order of the Tribunal accordingly stands quashed and is set aside. ( 34 ) THE writ petitioner, accordingly, succeeds in this writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Petition succeeds