Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. The above two writ petitions arise out of a common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated September 7, 1999, in I.D. No. 13 of 1990. Writ Petition No. 7797 of 2000, has been filed by the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, hereinafter called the union, in so far as it was aggrieved against that part of the award declining to give effect to the relief from April 1, 1978, i.e., the date of demand and the failure to order payment of 90 per cent of wages and benefits of clerical staff in the second respondent-bank hereinafter called the bank to part-time jewel appraisers. Writ Petition No. 12015 of 2000, has been preferred by the bank namely, the Indian Overseas Bank, challenging the award in I.D. No. 13 of 1990, in its entirety. The genesis of the case is that in the bank management out of various credit facilities made available to its customers, one such facility was grant of agricultural jewel loan. Whenever a borrower tenders a jewel as a security for the loan, before sanctioning the loan, the genuineness and the fineness of the gold will have to be tested and for that purpose, the bank management retain the services of traditional goldsmiths as jewel appraisers. According to one of the jewel appraisers involved in this litigation, his services as jewel appraiser commenced in the bank management, as early as in the year 1972. According to one of the jewel appraisers involved in this litigation, his services as jewel appraiser commenced in the bank management, as early as in the year 1972. The union claims that as early as in the year 1978, it took up the issue of absorption of jewel appraisers employed by the bank management at its various branches in India, that as the bank management was not inclined to respond to their demand, the union raised an industrial dispute on June 11, 1980, for absorption of the jewel appraisers as permanent part-time workmen that after failure of conciliation on February 5, 1982 the Government of India by its order dated January 20, 1983, declined to refer the issue for adjudication, whereupon, the union preferred Writ Petition No. 5766 of 1983, and by order dated November 22, 1989, this Hon'ble Court directed the Government of India to refer the dispute raised by the union for adjudication, pursuant to which, by order dated February 19, 1990, the Government of India referred the following issue for adjudication namely, "Whether the demand of the All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union to treat the jewel appraisers engaged by the bank as part-time workmen of the bank is justified, if so, to what relief if any are they entitled to." The said dispute was numbered as Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the first respondent. Before the Tribunal, the union contended that there are about 767 jewel appraisers engaged in the various rural branches of the bank management in the States of Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and in few of the branches in Bihar and Orissa, that the services of the jewel appraisers are availed by the bank management on furnishing a cash security of Rs. 1, 000, that the jewel appraisers are paid on Commission basis, that as part of the jewel appraising job, they also attend to various clerical duties, that the equipments required for carrying out jewel appraisal work is furnished by the bank, that under similar circumstances, the jewel appraisers in Indian Bank numbering about 353 agitated for absorption as part-time clerks to be paid half of the benefit of clerical staff, which was ultimately granted as the said claim of the Indian Bank Jewel Appraisers was countenanced initially by the Tribunal which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the nature of duties performed by the jewel appraisers in the respondent-bank being identical the claim of the union in the respondent-bank should also be granted. The said claim of the union was resisted by the bank management contending that they are not "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudan Sahu and another 1992 (2) LLN 406, that the issue involved, namely absorption of 767 jewel appraisers as claimed by the union related to jewel appraisers engaged in various States other than Tamil Nadu and therefore, the dispute could be adjudicated upon only by a National Tribunal constituted under Section 7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, that there being vast differences in respect of jewel appraisers employed by the Indian Bank and that of this bank management, the judgment relating to the Indian Bank jewel appraisers will have no application and that the judgment rendered in Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudan Sahu and another (supra) alone would apply to the case on hand and in such circumstances, the claims of the union cannot be countenancedIn respect of the above claim and counter made before the Industrial Tribunal WW-1 to WW-4 were examined on behalf of the union, while MW-1 and MW-2 were examined on behalf of the bank. Exhibits W-1 to W-24 were marked on the side of the union, while M-1 to M-14 were marked on the side of the bank. Exhibits W-1 to W-24 were marked on the side of the union, while M-1 to M-14 were marked on the side of the bank. On a consideration of the materials placed before it, the Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that the demand of the jewel appraisers of the bank management to treat them as part-time workmen of the bank was justified that the jewel appraisers were entitled to be treated as part-time workmen of the bank and should be paid half of the wages and benefits of clerical staff as paid in the Indian Bank, that they cannot demand for payment of commission on the basis of the loan sanctioned by the bank management as per the terms of the earlier agreement, that it is open to the bank to frame necessary rules fixing the service conditions of the jewel appraisers in view of the changed circumstances and it is also open to the bank to fix the nature of duties to be performed by them in view of the fact that the jewel appraisers have been declared to be entitled to get remuneration as part-time workers. The Tribunal ultimately granted the above reliefs to be given with effect from the date of reference namely, February 19, 1990. Aggrieved against the said award, the union as well as the bank have come forward with these writ petitions. Sri P. Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank, at the outset, contended that of the three contentions raised by the bank before the Tribunal, the contention based upon Section 7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not pursued at this stage, that though the whole controversy before the Tribunal centered around and agitated by both parties on the issue as to whether the jewel appraisers would fall within the definition of "workmen" falling under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, having regard to the terms of the reference posed for consideration before the Tribunal the real issue for consideration would be as to whether there was any justifiable grounds for countenancing the claims of the jewel appraisers to treat them as part-time workmen of the bank. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that unfortunately the real scope of controversy involved in this dispute was not focussed at all either by the union or by the bank which unfortunately resulted in the Tribunal not considering the real controversy involved in the dispute and in such circumstances, the award of the Tribunal having come to be passed on a total misconcepting of the issue involved in the dispute and in the circumstances, the proper course would be to remand the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal for considering the real conflict involved in their claim in order to arrive at proper adjudication of the real issue involved by permitting the parties to place the necessary materials relating to the said issueAccording to the learned senior counsel, the demand of the union in respect of the jewel appraisers of the bank being entirely different from the one relating to the demand made by the jewel appraisers of the Indian Bank, the award of the Tribunal in solely relying upon the decision rendered in the case of jewel appraisers of Indian Bank cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the proper course to have been adopted by the Tribunal in the case on hand should have been by way of considering the circumstances to show to what extent the services of the jewel appraisers could be construed as totally indispensable, having regard to their nature of duties vis-a-vis, the volume of business by way of jewel loans in the bank and other allied circumstances. The learned senior counsel pointed out that except one statement of the Tribunal to the effect that, "the services of jewel appraisers are indispensable in so far as the bank's business in granting loans on jewels is concerned," made in Para. 12 of the award, for which the conclusion also, there was no material placed before the Tribunal, there was no scope to sustain the impugned award and in the circumstances, the said award is liable to be set aside. 12 of the award, for which the conclusion also, there was no material placed before the Tribunal, there was no scope to sustain the impugned award and in the circumstances, the said award is liable to be set aside. The learned senior counsel however fairly conceded that on that score, the claims of the jewel appraisers made herein cannot be rejected out right, but however, the issue cannot be decided in such an abstract manner as has been done by the Tribunal without proper materials in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it and also in the absence of consideration of such evidence in a fair and equitable manner. The learned counsel would therefore harp on a remand of the dispute for fresh adjudication on the limited question as to the justifiability of treating the services of jewel appraisers as part-time employees of the bank, by permitting the parties to let in necessary evidence in support of their respective stand. The learned senior counsel further contended that having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudan Sahu and another (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case of a jewel appraiser and came to a conclusion that a jewel appraiser would not fall within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and applying the said decision to the case on hand, the claims of the union cannot be countenanced. The learned senior counsel further contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal in holding that the jewel appraisers would fall within definition of workmen was not based upon acceptable legal evidence and therefore, the said conclusion is liable to be set asideThe learned senior counsel also contended that the decision rendered in the case of the jewel appraiser of Indian Bank was based on a decision of the single Judge of Kerala High Court in respect of a jewel appraiser employed in Canara Bank and Bank of India and inasmuch as, the said judgment of the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court was upset by a Full Bench judgment of that High Court, reported in Canara Bank and others v. Appellate Authority and another 1981 (2) LLN 201, the very foundation based on which the claims of the Indian Bank jewel appraisers having been removed, no reliance can be placed upon the decision rendered in the case of Indian Bank jewel appraisers. The learned senior counsel would contend that going by the very terms of the reference in this case, it could be seen that there was a vast difference in the reference made in the case of jewel appraisers of Indian Bank as that of the jewel appraisers of this bank, inasmuch as in the case of the Indian Bank, the whole reference proceeded on the basis that they were "workmen" and the claim was only as to whether they should be granted wages on par with the part-time employees, while in the case on hand, the reference proceeds on the basis that the jewel appraisers are not workmen and that they should be treated as workmen by granting relief claimed therein. In such circumstances, the learned senior counsel would contend that the application of the judgment relating to jewel appraisers of Indian Bank would be totally out of context and that the approach should have been independent of the said decision. In such circumstances, the learned senior counsel would contend that the application of the judgment relating to jewel appraisers of Indian Bank would be totally out of context and that the approach should have been independent of the said decision. The learned senior counsel would contend that there is no category of jewel appraiser available in the banking industry as could be seen from the various awards and bipartite settlement governing the service conditions of the bank employees and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no scope for countenancing the claims of the unionThe learned senior counsel contended that in any event, the Tribunal has granted the relief without there being sufficient evidence for creating a category as claimed by the union. The learned senior counsel by referring to the evidence of MW-1 contended that the relief as claimed in the reference could not have been granted by the Tribunal. As against the various contentions raised on behalf of the bank, Sri K. Chandru, the learned senior counsel appearing for the union would contend that sufficient evidence was placed before the Tribunal while projecting the case of the union in support of their claim which included the various guidelines set forth by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters of this kind, such as control theory, organisational approach and remuneration aspect and in the circumstances, the Tribunal having reached the conclusion on the basis of evaluation of the various facts involved in reaching a conclusion about the indispensable nature of work performed by the jewel appraisers in the respondent-bank management, such a conclusion reached by the Tribunal based on detailed analysis of various facts should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned senior counsel for the union relied on the judgments reported in Dharangadhara, Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and others 1957-I-LLJ-477, Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and another 1973-II-LLJ-495, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and others v. Union of India and others 1974 (1) LLN 292 and Hussainbhai, Calicut v. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Calicut, and others 1978-II-LLJ-397, in support of the above submissionsThe learned counsel for the union would contend that while countenancing the claim of contract workmen in respect of a statutory Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held that the law Courts should invariably rise up to the occasion to do justice between the parties in a manner as it deems fit and in accordance therewith as per the need of the situation. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to Para 17 of the judgment reported in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and others 1999-I-LLJ-1086, which is to the following effect at p. 1092 of LLJ. "17. As noticed above the draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting a social and beneficial piece of legislation especially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity ought to survive with full vigour : socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be given its full play and it is in this perspective the question arises is it permissible in the new millennium to decry the cry of the labour force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240 days in an establishment and having their workings supervised and administered by an agency within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution - the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative - the law Courts exist for the society and in the event law Courts feel the requirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the law Courts ought to rise up to the occasion to meet and redress the expectation of the people. The expression "regulation" cannot possibly be read as contra public interest but in the interest of the public." As regards the judgment relating to the jewel appraisers of Indian Bank, the learned senior counsel contended that the award passed in the said dispute in I.D. No. 27 of 1977, dated December 3, 1979, was confirmed by the learned single Judge in the judgment reported in Indian Bank v. Indian Bank, Appraiser's Association, Madras, and another, that the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by its order dated May 3, 1990, in W.A. Nos. 330 and 350 of 1986, which was also ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated October 10, 1990, in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10054 of 1990, and in the circumstances, the nature of duties performed by the jewel appraisers in the said bank in the context of the nature of business carried on by the said bank, being identical in many respects, the Tribunal was fully justified in applying the ratio rendered in that case to the case on hand and that the award of the Tribunal should not therefore be interfered with. The learned senior counsel also sought reliance upon the judgment reported in Management of Indian Bank v. (1) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Madras (2) M. Seethalakshmi Ammal 1990-I-LLJ-50 (Mad-DB), which was a judgment rendered in respect of Tiny Deposit Collectors in the Indian Bank Management, where again the tiny deposit collectors were held to be workmen and the nature of duties in respect of tiny deposit collectors were also in some respects comparable to that of jewel appraisers. Applying the ratio of the said decision also the learned senior counsel, contended that the claims of the union should be countenanced. The learned senior counsel would contend that the judgments reported in Management of Indian Bank v. (1) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Madras, (2) M. Seethalakshmi Ammal (supra), was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel would point out that the judgment rendered in Management of Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudhan Sahu and another (supra) is distinguishable, inasmuch as the said decision related to a case of non-employment of an individual jewel appraiser and the decision depended solely upon the facts of that case. The learned senior counsel would point out that the judgment rendered in Management of Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudhan Sahu and another (supra) is distinguishable, inasmuch as the said decision related to a case of non-employment of an individual jewel appraiser and the decision depended solely upon the facts of that case. The learned senior counsel would state that while dealing with a case of non-employment of a single jewel appraiser, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the facts involved in that case turned down the claim of the said individual and therefore, it cannot be held that the decision rendered in that judgment would apply to a claim relating to the jewel appraisers as a class for their absorption in the services of the bank management which claim was based upon entirely under different situation and therefore, the countenancing of such a claim by the Tribunal on a consideration of various materials placed before it should not be upset by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble, Supreme Court rendered thereinThe learned senior counsel would contend that in the case on hand, right from the stage of initiation of the dispute in the year 1980, the whole claim was based upon the relief granted to the jewel appraisers in Indian Bank in I.D. No. 25 of 1977, in the award, dated December 3, 1979, that even before the Tribunal, the endeavour was to get the relief that was awarded to the jewel appraisers in the Indian Bank, that the parties before the Tribunal understood the claim as one on par with jewel appraisers of Indian Bank, that even if the terminology in the order of reference was different, the Tribunal as well as the parties having understood the real scope of the reference while dealing with the dispute this Court should not be pedantic in its approach in granting the relief and that the Tribunal having answered the reference in the affirmative by taking into account the various circumstances pleaded by the parties, the same should not be interfered with. The learned senior counsel also contended that it is too late in the day for the bank management to contend that proper materials were not placed before the Tribunal for consideration of the real issue involved in the dispute, inasmuch as, the union filed various interlocutory applications before the Tribunal to direct the bank management to produce various documents relating to the working of the jewel appraisers as well as the volume of business turned out by the management and when the bank management resisted the said attempt of the union and was not inclined to place the relevant materials before the Tribunal inspite of the asking of the same at the instance of the union, the present claim of the bank management for remanding the dispute for placing appropriate materials is neither justified nor necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned senior counsel would contend that having regard to the abundant evidence available on record in the form of oral evidence let in through WW-1 to WW-4, as well as, the documents summoned and marked through the bank management, the claims of the union having been fully established, the conclusion of the Tribunal should be sustainedThe learned senior counsel by relying upon the judgment reported in Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union and another 2000-I-LLJ-1618, with specific reference to Para. 19 contended that by applying the principles set out therein, when the Tribunal has analysed the problem in the background of the materials placed before it and came to a conclusion, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. 19 contended that by applying the principles set out therein, when the Tribunal has analysed the problem in the background of the materials placed before it and came to a conclusion, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. The learned senior counsel relied upon Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and others 1997-I-LLJ-1113 for the proposition that when the Tribunal has left it open to the bank management to settle the other service conditions relating to the jewel appraisers while making them part-time employees of the bank, applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the employer as a worldly businessman in his practical commercial wisdom should arrange its affairs and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also opined that in such circumstances, it would also be open to the employer in a proper case if the excess workmen staff were found to be not required, to retrench them in accordance with law by following the provisions of I.D. Act and the same had nothing to do with the moot question about the absorption of the employees. As regards the claim made by the union, in W.P. No. 7797 of 2000, the learned counsel would contend that when the dispute was raised by the union as early as on February 6, 1980, though, the claim was made for giving effect to the relief with effect from April 1, 1978, the relief should have been given from the date of the demand namely February 6, 1980. The learned counsel contended that the wages should also have been directed to be paid as being paid to the part-time clerks namely at the rate of 90 per cent of the wages, when once jewel appraisers were directed to be treated as part-time employeesSri P. Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank management further contended that the test to be applied in a case of this nature has been rightly setout by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in All India Railway. Institute Employees' Association v. Union of India, Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Their workmen 1996-II-LLJ-42, and State Bank of India and others v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) and others 2000-I-LLJ-1441 and that should have been the proper approach to the vexed question involved in this case. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the correct approach should have been as has been set out in the judgment reported in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Their workmen and others 1975-II-LLJ-336. Having heard the learned counsel for either side the issue involved in these two writ petitions narrows down to the question as to whether the claim of the union for treating the jewel appraisers on par with part-time workmen of the bank management is justified. It is true that as contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank management in respect of the specific terms contained in the order of reference the approach of the parties as well as the Tribunal was to some extent diverted to a different direction in that, everyone was attempting to find out as to whether the jewel appraisers could be called as the workmen of the bank management. Every endeavour was made at the instance of the union to show on the one hand that jewel appraisers were workmen while at the instance of the bank, it was attempted to show that they are independent contractors. As contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank management the Tribunal failed to concentrate or focus its attention to the real controversy involved in the issue referred for adjudication, namely what is the justification of the union to claim that the jewel appraisers should be treated as part-time workmen of the bank management. If the parties and the Tribunal had approached the issue in that perspective, the scope of consideration would have centered around the pivotal point namely as to the indispensable or otherwise of the nature of the duties performed by the jewel appraisers, vis-a-vis, the volume of jewel loan business turned out by the bank management all these years and the justifiability to be arrived at based on the consideration of the relative materials placed before the Tribunal. The consideration of the said issue would have necessarily involved the following questions, viz(a) what is the business turned out in regard to the grant of jewel loans in the bank; (b) what would be the nature of services to be rendered by the jewel appraisers for dealing with the various jewel loan applications; (c) what would be the extent of involvement of the jewel appraisers in the matter of dealing with a jewel loan application; (d) what would be the time consumption involved while dealing with an application for jewel loan; (e) what would be the extent of requirement of the services of jewel appraisers by the bank management to deal with the jewel loan applications; (f) what would be the parameter required for the engagement of jewel appraisers vis-a-vis their responsibilities in the matter of assessment of the value of the jewels; and (g) what should be the remuneration to be fixed to the jewel appraisers in the event of the Tribunal ultimately holding that they should be treated as part-time employees. In the case on hand, as could be seen from the records available, the union wholly depended on the award relating to jewel appraisers in the Indian Bank, wherein, it was held that the jewel appraisers were not independent contractors or self-styled professionals but part-time employees of the Indian Bank management and, therefore they should be paid wages and accorded other conditions of service applicable to regular clerical award staff of the bank, but would be entitled to proportionate wages and other benefits namely half the wages and benefits payable to clerical staff. The conception and approach of the union in the direction, cannot also be found fault with, inasmuch as, whatever is said and done, the status of the jewel appraisers of the bank management was more or less identical to that of the jewel appraisers of Indian Bank. While projecting its claim before the Tribunal the union made all its endeavour to show that the jewel appraisers were performing certain duties which would bring them within the definition of "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said approach cannot also be found fault with, since the bank management resisted the claim of the union mainly and substantially on the sole ground that they cannot be construed as "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said approach cannot also be found fault with, since the bank management resisted the claim of the union mainly and substantially on the sole ground that they cannot be construed as "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such a situation, it is natural that the union focussed its concentration mainly on the said question so as to get itself rested on a sound footing while pursuing its claim for absorption or for treatment on par with a regular bank employee. But unfortunately in its anxiety to rule out the possibility of its claim being rejected at the threshold, the union failed to concentrate its attention as to the real crux of the issue involved in the dispute. As far as the bank management was concerned though the senior counsel would rely upon certain portions of the evidence of MW-1, to reject the claim of the union, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to buttress the claims of the union in answering the real question involved in the dispute. Above all when attempts were made at the instance of the union to persuade the bank management to place the various materials before the Tribunal for reaching a conclusion on the real issue involved in the dispute, under some pretext or other, the bank evaded to place the materials before the TribunalHowever, at the repeated insistence of the union, certain documents were placed before the Tribunal in respect of some of the branches which throw some light on the question involved in the dispute. In the above stated circumstances, having regard to the fact that the dispute is of two decades old, I was wondering whether I should straight-away set aside the award and remand the matter back for consideration on the limited question as to the justifiability of the claim of the union to treat the jewel appraisers as part-time workmen of the bank management. In other words, without giving any room or scope for the bank management to contend that the claims of the union cannot be considered at all under the pretext that the jewel appraisers are not "workmen" falling within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I felt whether the short question about the justification alone could be or should be remitted for consideration by the Tribunal. When I went through the pleadings of the parties, as well as, the entire evidence both oral as well as documentary placed before the Tribunal, I could cull out the following particulars, (i) In the claim statement filed by the union, it is claimed that jewel loan facility was started in the year 1978 (ii) 767 jewel appraisers were employed monthly (iii) Jewel loan form to be certified by a jewel appraiser, in order to consider the grant of a jewel loan (iv) A commission of Rs. 3 for every sum of Rs. 1, 000 sanctioned by way of loan was being paid to jewel appraiser (v) Demand for absorption commenced as early as from April 1, 1978 (vi) Jewel appraisers of Indian Bank absorbed as part-time employees on regular basis on the basis of the award of the Tribunal as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court(vii) The evidence of WW-1 in Chief Examination as well as in cross brings forth the following facts - (1) Dispute raised in the year 1980 (2) Agricultural jewel loan and other jewel loans are being transacted in the bank management (3) The claims of the jewel appraisers will come within the category of part-time clerks under Exhibit W-2 (4) Certain other specialists are also appointed in certain categories under Exhibit W-5 (5) The bank management has granted agricultural jewel loans to the tune of Rs. 240 crores (6) Without the assistance of a jewel appraiser no agricultural jewel loan can be granted (7) The jewel loan applications are filled up by the jewel appraisers as shown under Exhibits M-12 and M-13 since most of the borrowers are agriculturists (8) The jewel loan ledgers such as Exhibit W-8 are written by the jewel appraisers (9) The reminders for repayment of jewel loan are sent only by the jewel appraisers (10) The closing of jewel loan account are done by jewel appraisers (11) The certification of weighing scale is carried out by the jewel appraisers (12) A certificate is issued by the jewel appraiser certifying the weight, fineness and the genuineness of the jewel, i.e., presented for pledging (13) Majority jewel loan transactions are carried in the Southern States (14) Jewel appraisers are issued with appointment orders such as Exhibit W-16 (15) For the purpose of safety, jewel appraisers have to perform their functions in the bank premises (16) If any jewel loan is granted on duplicate jewels action is taken against the jewel appraiser, as well as the Manager (viii) Evidence of WW-2 brings forth the following facts (1) That he was attached to the Mayiladuthurai branch(2) He used to work daily (3) The work used to last between 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m (4) Daily 15 to 20 jewel loans are disbursed (5) M2 is the jewel loan register for the period January 19, 1994 to June 24, 1995, recorded by WW-2 (6) M4 series are the jewel loan cards, M-4 series are the debit vouchers, M-6 series are ledger papers filled by him (7) After initial scrutiny of the jewel loan application along with the jewels a brass token is issued to the customer, which is done by WW-2 (8) Jewels cannot be taken outside the bank premises for checking (9) The stamping of the weighing scale are done by him in co-ordination with the statutory authorities (10) He was issued with a Goldsmith certificate as per Exhibit W-18 (11) He was engaged as a jewel appraiser as per the orders issued by the bank management under Exhibit W-19. (12) If a jewel appraiser commits any mistake, he will be simply asked to go away. (ix) The evidence of WW-3 who was attached to Sathya Vijayanagaram Branch discloses the following particulars. (1) He was employed as jewel appraisers right from the year 1973. (12) If a jewel appraiser commits any mistake, he will be simply asked to go away. (ix) The evidence of WW-3 who was attached to Sathya Vijayanagaram Branch discloses the following particulars. (1) He was employed as jewel appraisers right from the year 1973. (2) He used to call the jewel loan applicants, as per the token numbers issued in the branch. (3) On an average, he used to deal with 10 to 15 customers in a day. (4) The manager cannot disburse any amount by way of loan over and above what is determined by him, based on the appraisal of a jewel. (5) W-20 is the order of appointment issued to WW-3. (6) In the absence of WW-3 no jewel loan is issued. (x) The evidence of MW-1 reveals the following facts. (1) The work of the jewel appraiser is to fix the value of the jewels. (2) Only in South India, jewel loans are on the higher side. (3) It is the policy of the Government to advance jewel loans to agriculturists(4) After nationalisation, maximum loans are agricultural loans and 98 per cent of them are discharged. (5) The bank Manager cannot value the jewel. (6) Generally genuine gold and duplicate gold cannot be found with a naked eye. (7) As per Exhibit M-10 circular, jewel appraisers should be present in the bank during working hours. (8) Only if the certificate is issued by the jewel appraiser, the other documents pertaining to jewel loan could be filled up. (9) Out of the total agricultural loans of 13, 000 crores, 238 crores are agricultural jewel loans. (10) Without the availability of a jewel appraiser no agricultural jewel loan could be granted. (11) No documents were filed to show the total amount of agricultural loan granted. (xi) The evidence of MW-2 who worked in Mayiladuthurai Branch discloses the following facts, (1) Exhibit M-14 series are the majority of cards filled up by the jewel appraisers. (2) As per the Central Government orders, jewel loans should be granted to those customers who have got the status to obtain the loan. (3) If the jewel loan is of inferior quality, the jewel appraiser is also responsible. (4) If such things happen, jewel appraiser will not be engaged again. (2) As per the Central Government orders, jewel loans should be granted to those customers who have got the status to obtain the loan. (3) If the jewel loan is of inferior quality, the jewel appraiser is also responsible. (4) If such things happen, jewel appraiser will not be engaged again. (xii) Exhibits W-4 to W-5 have been placed before the Tribunal to show that jewel appraisers can be fit into the category of part-time employees by providing a graded scale of pay or wages and that a category under the nomenclature of a jewel appraiser could be created like that of various other special categories such as Liaison Officer Technical Officer, Architects, Security Officers, Official Language Officers, Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants, Industrial Relation Officers and Investigating Officers which are not regular categories of employees in a banking business(xiii) Exhibits W-6 to W-12 were all jewel loan applications and the related documents. A perusal of those exhibits did show that a jewel appraiser has got a definite role to play in the day-to-day transaction of the grant of a jewel loan in a branch of the bank management. (xiv) Exhibit W-10 is a certificate issued by a jewel appraiser in the course of performance of his duty as a jewel appraiser to the Inspector/Officer of the bank-management certifying to the effect that he verified all the jewels pledged in a particular branch and found them to be in order with regard to the weight, fineness, value and description and also that no spurious jewels were pledged with the branch. Therefore, a consideration of the above factors go to show that in the matter of handling a gold jewel, the jewel appraiser has been invested with a greater responsibility and the entire borrowing as well as the retention of the jewel in the bank is dependent upon the faithful and sincere services of a jewel appraiser. In other words, there being no other documents to verify the genuineness of the gold pledged or the subsequent retention of it till it is returned back to the concerned borrower at the time of discharge of the liability, the certificate issued by the jewel appraiser at every stage is given greater value and importance without which the whole transaction would be invalid. Even assuming that the role played by the jewel appraiser in the matter of filling up of the applications, maintenance of register, etc., is of very little consequence, having regard to the greater responsibility reposed in them in the matter of grant of jewel loan the question is whether it could still be said, that the role of a jewel appraiser in the bank management is so very negligible that their interest need not be taken care of to the extent to which it is claimed in the disputeHaving considered the various factors referred to above, I am of the view that it is too late in the day for the bank management to contend that the claims of the jewel appraisers is far-fetched or to be ignored on the footing that there was no contractual relationship of master and servant between the bank management and the jewel appraisers or that the nature of the duties performed by the jewel appraisers are so very frivolous or negligible in the consideration of the bank management so as not even to consider their claim for treating them on par with part-time employees. On the other hand, the evidence available on record did establish that the business turned out by the bank in regard to the grant of jewel loans is substantial, that the discharge of jewel loans are also admittedly to the extent of 98 per cent that the nature of services rendered by the jewel appraisers vis-a-vis the scrutiny of the jewels pledged disclose that the services of the appraiser is almost regularly availed by the bank, apart from the fact that such services rendered by the jewel appraisers are indispensable inasmuch, as solely dependent on the certificate issued by the jewel appraiser the grant of loan is ultimately considered. Therefore the involvement of the jewel appraisers in the matter of dealing with the jewel loan transactions in a branch has become the regular feature making it impossible for the bank to deal with any jewel loan application without the assistance of a jewel appraiser. Further dealing with jewel loan applications involves various details relating to the borrower, the details about the nature of jewel sought to be pledged and other relevant factors. Further dealing with jewel loan applications involves various details relating to the borrower, the details about the nature of jewel sought to be pledged and other relevant factors. Therefore a jewel appraiser while scrutinizing a jewel loan application as well as the quality and quantity of the jewel sought to be pledged had to spend considerable time and therefore it cannot be held that the services of jewel appraisers that is being availed of by the bank is so very negligible in point of time so as to reject their claim made in this reference. As regards the parameter required for the engagement of a jewel appraiser vis-a-vis their responsibilities in the matter of assessment of the value of the jewels and also the remuneration to be fixed depending upon the extent of services rendered by jewel appraiser, the Tribunal itself has held in its award that, "It is open to the bank to frame necessary rules fixing the service conditions of the appraisers in view of the changed circumstances and that it was open to the bank to fix the nature of the duties to be performed by them in view of the fact that they have been declared to be entitled to get remuneration as part-time workers." Therefore inasmuch as the materials available on record as detailed in Para. 24 herein sufficiently go to show that the demand of the jewel appraisers as couched in the order of reference could be affirmed. I am of the view that remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, would be futile in the facts and circumstances of the case and would not be justified in the interest of all parties concerned. As regards the submission based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Puri Bank's case (supra) as contended by Sri K. Chandru, the learned senior counsel for the union that case is clearly distinguishable especially in the light of the judgment relating to the jewel appraisers of Indian Bank which was also ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment rendered in Puri Bank's case (supra), was related to a case of non-employment of a jewels, appraiser simpliciter and a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, discloses that it was an isolated case where the issue involved was not relating to a claim of the jewel appraisers as a "class" demanding parity with other part-time employees of the bank. There is also not much of evidence as has been placed in this case, so as to warrant a conclusion as to the demand of jewel appraisers to treat them on par with part-time employees. The principle is well known plea that a judgment cannot be an authority for a proposition which was not canvassed before it. Applying the said principle it can be safely concluded that the case on hand should be guided and settled by the principles that were considered and set out in the case of jewel appraisers relating to Indian Bank and not based on the judgment reported in Puri Bank's case (supra)The reference to Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Canara Bank's case (supra) cannot be pressed into service, inasmuch as the question involved therein was relatable to the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, which is based on entirely different concept altogether than the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, where the definition of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is too wide and would take within its fold every form of service rendered by an individual in an industry in the course of the discharge of his duties. The approach as stated by the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank management should be as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in All India Railway Institute Employees' Association v. Union of India (supra), Employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India v. Their workmen (supra) and State Bank of India and others v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle), and others (supra) but applying the principles set out therein to the facts of this case and on analysing the materials placed before the Tribunal, which have been set out in detail in Para. 24 of this judgment, it can be safely concluded that the conclusion of the Tribunal in holding that the services of jewel appraisers are indispensable was fully justified and the claim of the union relating to the jewel appraisers was established and thereby entitle them for treating them on par with other part-time employees of the bank. As far as the claim of the union for giving effect to the award right from April 1, 1978, I find that the very dispute itself was raised by the union only in the year 1980. However, when the Government of India declined reference and when the dispute came to be ultimately referred to the Tribunal in February 1990 and when the bank management had no role to play as far as the issue of a reference is concerned, no blame can be attributed to the bank for the delayed reference. In such circumstances the granting of the relief from the date of reference by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. As regards the grant of relief namely at the rate of half of the wages and benefits that are to be paid to the part-time workmen of the bank in the clerical category is concerned, it is common case that jewel appraisers in all the branches, all over Southern States would not have work for the entire duration of the banking hours. Therefore, there could be no justification for the union to claim that jewel appraisers as a rule should be granted wages at the rate of 90 per cent as claimed in W.P. No. 7797 of 2000Therefore, I do not find any flaw in the relief granted by the Tribunal for the various reasons and considerations of materials placed before it, which established the claims of the jewel appraisers to treat them on par with the part-time employees of the bank. I therefore, affirm the award of the Tribunal, dated September 7, 1999, made in Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 1990 for all the reasons mentioned herein. Both the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.