JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, Ag.C.J. 1. Appellant petitioner was the Secretary of Kattappana Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. 3738. On account of misconduct, after a proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D. 17/1986. Labour Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, because he was not a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Award passed by the Labour Court was challenged before this court in O.P. 6030/1990. Learned Single Judge concurred with the view taken by the Labour Court and held that petitioner was not a workman coming within the purview of the Act. Consequently, the Original Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant, who was the Secretary of Kattapana Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. 3738, is a 'workman' as defined in the Act. 3. While defining 'workman' in clause (s) of S.2 of the Act, one who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is specifically excluded from its purview. So, if the petitioner was employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, he cannot fall in the category of 'workman'. What are the tests to be followed to find out the nature of an employment? Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether an employee is engaged in a managerial capacity or not, as per S.4(1)(a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, in Prem Sagar v. S. V. Oil Company, AIR 1965 SC 111 , stated: "Several considerations would naturally be relevant in dealing with this problem. Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether an employee is engaged in a managerial capacity or not, as per S.4(1)(a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, in Prem Sagar v. S. V. Oil Company, AIR 1965 SC 111 , stated: "Several considerations would naturally be relevant in dealing with this problem. It may be enquired whether the person had a power to operate on the bank account or could he make payments to third parties and enter into agreements with them on behalf of the employer, when he was entitled to represent the employer to the world at large in regard to the dealings of the employer with strangers, did he have authority to supervise the work of the clerks employed in the establishment, did he have control and charge of the correspondence, could he make commitments on behalf of the employer, could he grant leave to the members of the staff and hold disciplinary proceedings against them, has he power to appoint members of the staff or punish them; these and similar other tests may be usefully applied in determining the question about the status of an employee.........". Before proceeding further, we have to examine the nature of the duties of the appellant when he was holding the post of Secretary of the Society. The duties and functions of the Secretary of the Bank has been elaborated by the appellant in Para.3 of the claim statement filed by him before the Labour Court. For a proper understanding of that, we read the same: "Under the bye laws, the Secretary is the key post which controls and administers the day to day affairs of the Bank. Secretary is the person to sue and to be sued as per the bye laws". This averment shows that the appellant petitioner was the ministerial head of the Cooperative Society. He was holding a managerial post and had control over the entire administration of the Society. So, on his own showing, it is to be taken that appellant was mainly holding a managerial post, having administrative control over the entire affairs of the Cooperative Society. Consequently, he is not a 'workman' as defined in the Act. 4. Learned counsel representing the appellant brought to our notice judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in T. C. C. Coop. Consequently, he is not a 'workman' as defined in the Act. 4. Learned counsel representing the appellant brought to our notice judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in T. C. C. Coop. Society v. Labour Court, 1988 (2) KLT 781 , and contended that Secretary of a Cooperative Society is a workman under the Act. In that case, the employee as on the date of dismissal from service was not holding the post of Secretary. Some time past he functioned as Secretary. Then he went on long leave. On expiry of leave, he was admitted to duty as a Clerk. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and was dismissed after holding domestic enquiry. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised and the matter referred to Labour Court. On this set of facts, the learned Judge observed: "I am satisfied that the Labour Court was justified in assuming that 2nd respondent was not employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity and either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, his functions were not mainly of a managerial nature. He was treated as a Clerk for all purposes". (emphasis added) According to us, this decision can never be authority for the proposition that Secretary of a Cooperative Society is a workman under the Act. The Court has to examine whether the Secretary was employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity take not of the duties and functions attached to the post of Secretary. If the Secretary is engaged in managerial or administrative capacity, then Secretary will cease to be a 'workman' under the Act. 5. In the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, the word "employee" has been defined on almost identical terms as definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Disputes Act. Question as to whether Secretary of a Cooperative Society is entitled to the benefits under Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Shertallai Taluk Coop. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 1990 (2) KLT 175 . The Bench took the view that the expression "employee" makes it clear that if a person is employed mainly in a managerial or an administrative capacity, he cannot be regarded as an employee for the purpose of the said Act. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 1990 (2) KLT 175 . The Bench took the view that the expression "employee" makes it clear that if a person is employed mainly in a managerial or an administrative capacity, he cannot be regarded as an employee for the purpose of the said Act. That statement, according to us, will help to get at the actual scope and effect of the definition of 'workman' in the I.D. Act as well. Consequently, if the nature of the work of the Secretary is such that he was holding the post in a managerial capacity, then he cannot be considered as a workman. As seen from the averments made by the appellant in the claim petition filed before the Labour Court, appellant was in full charge of the executive administration of the society. A person who is employed as the head of the administration of the society must be deemed to discharging duties in a managerial capacity. Such a person cannot be regarded as a 'workman' as defined in the Act. Writ Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.