JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - The opp. party No.4 was initially appointed as Junior Co-operative Supervisor under the petitioner-management and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Circle Inspector with effect from 5.3.1973. The said post was re-designated subsequently as Zonal Officer with effect from 8.8.1997 in the same scale of pay and he was drawing a gross salary of As. 570/- per month. As the opp. party No.4 remained on leave continuously and never joined the services of the petitioner-management in spite of caution and instruction to resume his duties and according to the management, he was involved in certain serious acts of misconduct, he was placed under suspension with effect from 22.10.1980. The management-petitioner's case is that the employees of the petitioner-bank were governed as per the provisions of the Orissa Service Code and as such, the opp. party No.4 was entitled to receive subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, subject to submission of non-engagement certificate by him. However, the opp. party No.4 never submitted any such certificate nor made any request for payment of subsistence allowance. Having regard to the misconduct committed by the opp. party No.4, a charge-sheet was issued against him on 25.03.1981 but no show cause was filed by him. The opp. party No.4 also did not co-operate at all with the management in the disciplinary proceedings and thus, presuming that he is not interested to further continuance of his employment, his case was construed as a voluntary abandonment of employment. The opp. party No.4 raised an industrial dispute before the Asst. Labour Officer, Puri by filing a complaint on 24.2.1990. Notice was issued to the petitioner-management which submitted its views denying all the allegations made by the opp. party No.4 and specifically asserting that he has voluntarily abandoned his employment. The conciliation having failed and a report thereafter submitted to the State Government, a reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 16.4.1993 to the following effect : Whether the action of the management of M/s. United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Puri by refusing employment to Sri Prafulla Kumar Pattnaik in guise of suspension w.e.f. 22.10.80 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled ? 2. Upon reference being made, I.D. Case No. 35 of 1993 was registered and the opp. If not, what relief he is entitled ? 2. Upon reference being made, I.D. Case No. 35 of 1993 was registered and the opp. party No.4 filed his statement of claim as well as the petitioner-management submitted its written statement. A specific question was raised by the petitioner-management with regard to the status of the opp. party No.4, in its written statement, by asserting that from the very designation and nature of the duties performed by him were supervisory in nature and he was drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs. 500/- at the relevant time for which he could never be construed as a 'workman' and the reference is incompetent and not maintainable. The nature of the duties of opp. party No.4 was averred in the written statement filed by the petitioner-management. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puri framed four issues, which are as follows : (I) Whether the 2nd party is a 'workman' and the reference maintainable ? (II) Whether his suspension and out of employment for a long period amounts to refusal of employment w.e.f. 22.10.80 ? (III) Has he voluntarily abandoned his employment and avoided disciplinary proceeding started against him ? (IV) To what relief, he is entitled ? 3. Both the parties examined one witness each in support of their respective cases. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in his award dated 28.9.2001 with regard to Issue No. (i) as to whether the opp. party No.4 is a 'workman' and the reference is maintainable, finding that the opp. party No.4 had no authority to take any decision or action against any of the staff working in the Branch Office, came to the conclusion that' he did not perform any supervisory duty and is a 'workman'. He, therefore, concluded that the reference made is maintainable. With regard to Issue No. (ii) as to whether his suspension and remaining out of employment for a long period amounts to refusal of employment with effect from 22.10.1980, the learned Presiding Officer referring to the material produced before him more specifically the charges framed against him under Ext. 2, the request made by the 'workman' under Ext. With regard to Issue No. (ii) as to whether his suspension and remaining out of employment for a long period amounts to refusal of employment with effect from 22.10.1980, the learned Presiding Officer referring to the material produced before him more specifically the charges framed against him under Ext. 2, the request made by the 'workman' under Ext. 3, to allow him to peruse, to inspect, to get extract of relevant records for preparing his written explanation of defence and his request to intimate him the date and time for that purpose, coupled with the fact that no reply was given to his request under Ext. 3 and further referring to the fact that appointment of Enquiring Officer was never intimated to the 'workman', came to the conclusion that suspension of the 'workman' for a long period with effect from 22.10.1980 amounts to refusal of employment. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for the above conclusion has also taken note of the fact that the management could not produce any record showing that the Enquiring Officer has directed the delinquent-applicant to appear before him at a particular place and time for conducting enquiry. No enquiry report was also furnished to the workman and under Ext. 4, the Secretary of the Bank had given a notice of retirement to the workman on 30.4.1996 intimating that he will be retired from service with effect from 31.5.1996 and the workman also retired from the said date. Answering Issue No. (iii) as to whether the workman has voluntarily abandoned his employment and avoided disciplinary proceeding started against him, the learned Presiding Officer, referring to the materials produced before him came to the conclusion that the management failed to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable time particularly when the 'workman' was placed under suspension for a long period till superannuation, which action of the management clearly amounts to refusal of employment with effect from 22.10.1980 and it cannot be said that the 'workman' has voluntarily abandoned his job to avoid the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. Concluding thus, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar answered the reference in the award, in favour of the 'workman', which is as follows : That the action of the management of M/s. United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Puri by refusing employment to Sri Prafulla Kumar Patnaik in the guise of suspension with effect from 22.10.80 is illegal and unjustified. The workman Sri Patnaik is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages till the date of his retirement. Since the workman has already been retired with effect from 31.5.96, he is entitled to get his wages and other benefits as if he was in continuous service from 22.10.80 till the date of his retirement on superannuation. The management is directed to implement the Award within one month from the date of its publication in the official Gazettee failing the workman will be at liberty to get the Award implemented through process of law and in that case the workman will be entitled to realize the amount from the date the same became payable till the date of actual payment along with interest at the rate of 15% (fifteen percent) per annum since the claim of the workman has already been delayed for more than 21 (Twenty one) years. The reference is thus answered accordingly. 4. Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management, which has challenged the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in this writ petition, submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in law in holding that the opp. party No.4 is a 'workman' and that the reference was maintainable. In support of the above contention, he strenuously submitted that though it is admitted that the 'workman' was put under suspension and charge-sheeted, the learned Labour Court appears to have elongated the time regarding the purported cause of action which appears to be a product of travelling beyond the reference as well as enlarging its scope, which is not permissible under law. There being no finding of the Labour Court that the act of suspension with effect from 22.10.1980 is in any way illegal, unjustified or has amounted to refusal of employment so as to be construed as an industrial dispute justifying a reference and industrial adjudication, question of refusal of employment amounting to termination is misconceived. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. party No.4- workman, however on the contrary, submitted that from the materials available on record, it is clear that the opp. party No.4 comes under the definition of 'workman'. Section 2(s) of the Act defines 'workman'. Before amendment of the said Section by Act 47 of 1982, Clause (iii) thereof excluded a person from the definition of the 'workman', if he is employed in a supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding Rs. 500/- per mensem. The said amount was amended by Act 47 of 1982 to Rs. 1600/- per month. In reply to the submission of Mr. Mishra that there was ample materials before the Labour Court to show that the duty of the opp. party No.4 was supervisory in nature and as such, he is excluded from the definition of 'workman'. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. party No.4 submits that as has been held by the Labour Court and the stand taken just by giving a vague statement that the workman was discharging supervisory duty is not enough to exclude him from the definition of 'workman'. In the case of D. Ananda Rao Dora Vs. Khadi and Village Industry Commission and Another Chief Justice Shri B.L. Hansaria as he then was, speaking for the Bench, discarded a similar contention raised on behalf of the management in the said case and laid down that when the validity of the reference has to be judged on the basis of the law prevailing on the date of reference, it cannot be held that for the purpose of deciding whether the person is a 'workman' or not, the salary drawn at the time of termination has to be taken into consideration. With regard to the plea of the management that the opp. party No.4 was discharging supervisory duties and the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management that the management exhibited Ext. C showing that the nature of the duty which was being performed by the opp. party No.4-workman at the relevant time was supervisory in nature, it would be apt to refer the case of S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management that the management exhibited Ext. C showing that the nature of the duty which was being performed by the opp. party No.4-workman at the relevant time was supervisory in nature, it would be apt to refer the case of S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another. The Supreme Court in the said case while interpreting Section 2(s) of the Act after quoting the said section held as follows : xxx xxx xxx The words 'any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work' are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude of the definition of 'workman' on the other hand they indicate and emphasize the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. Quite obviously the broad intention is to take in the entire 'labour force' and exclude the 'managerial force'. That, of course, is as it should be. 5. It is trite to say that Industrial Disputes Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and management in an industry and for that purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the definitions of 'industry', 'workman', 'industrial dispute' etc. so as not to whittle down, but to advance the object of the Act. Disputes between the forces of labour and management are not be excluded from the operation of the Act by giving narrow and restricted meanings to expressions in the Act. The Parliament could never be credited with the intention of keeping out of the purview of the legislation small bands of employees who, though not on the managerial side of the establishment, are yet to be denied the ordinary rights of the forces of labour for no apparent reason at all. In The Workmen of Indian Standards Institution Vs. The Management of Indian Standards Institution, this Court had occasion to point out : .... In The Workmen of Indian Standards Institution Vs. The Management of Indian Standards Institution, this Court had occasion to point out : .... It is necessary to remember that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between management and labour in an 'industry' so that production does not suffer and at the same time, labour is not exploited and discontented and, therefore, the tests must be so applied as to give the widest possible connotation to the term 'industry'. Whenever a question arises whether a particular concern is an 'industry'[, the approach must be broad and liberal and not rigid or doctrinaire. We cannot forget that it is a special welfare legislation we are interpreting and we must place such an interpretation as would advance the object and purpose of the legislation and give full meaning and effect to it in the achievement of its avowed social objective. So we adopt a pragmatic and not a pedantic approach and we proceed, in considering the question whether development officers in the Life Insurance Corporation are workmen, to first consider the broad question on which side of the line they fall, labour or management, and then to consider whether there are any good reasons for moving them over from one side to the other. 6. In the case of Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. the Supreme Court referring to the nature of the duty performed by the workman in the said case, observed that the workman in the said case had no power to appoint or dismiss any workman or order any enquiry against any workman as under such circumstance, the substantial duty of the concerned employee was only that of a Security Inspector, which was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature, so as to excluding him from the definition of 'workman' u/s 2(s) of the Act, (emphasis supplied). 7. Considering the impugned award in the touch stone of the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned award nor any finding thereof is arbitrary or unreasonable. This Court, therefore, desists from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing a writ quashing the impugned award. This Court, therefore, desists from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing a writ quashing the impugned award. The impugned award passed in I.D. Case No. 35 of 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar is, therefore, confirmed. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed