JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J.-The Appellant-Berhampur Town House Building Co- operative Society United (for short, "the Society") has filed this writ appeal questioning the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge on the contentious issues framed Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by the (hereinafter called as "the Tribunal") in affirming the Judgment dated 15th April, 2000 passed by-the Tribunal allowing the Service Dispute Case No.6 of 1996 directing the Society to reinstate Respondent No.2 in his original post as Secretary of the Society & pay his duty pay & leave salary as claimed by him subject to availability of leave at his credit & holding that Respondent No.2 is entitled to all consequential reliefs as Secretary of the Society taking various grounds & contending that the findings recorded on the contentious issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 by the Tribunal as erroneous & the same is contrary to the legal evidence on record & the substantial questions that would arise for consideration by this Court in appeal are to set aside the order impugned in this appeal & quash the Judgment of the Tribunal. 2. Necessary brief facts are required to be stated as the Tribunal as well as the Learned Single Judge has laterally adverted to the facts of the case which arose in Service Dispute Case No.6/96 filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal & legal rival contentions are urged. The same are answered against the Appellant by the Learned Single Judge after adverting to the legal rival contentions urged & the decisions placed by the Appellant's Counsel by recording a concurrent finding on the contentious issues framed by the Tribunal. 3. The case of Respondent No.2 is that he Joined the post of Secretary by Order Dated 5.9.1980 issued by the President of the Society. He joined duty on 12.9.1980. After posting of one D.C. Senapati as regular Secretary. Respondent No.2 was assigned with the duty of Additional Secretary on 23.3.1987, which he accepted with objection 14.10.1987, & on 26.8.1983 he was seriously ill for various' ailments & remained on leave from time to time on medical grounds, but his leave salary for the period he was on leave was denied to him. When he joined on 26.8.1993 & was regularly attending the office of the Society, he was not allotted with any work. When he joined on 26.8.1993 & was regularly attending the office of the Society, he was not allotted with any work. He made a representation on 12.3.1996 claiming his leave salary & duty pay, the Society by letter dated 27.3.1996 intimated to Respondent No.2 that his service had been terminated with effect from 27.3.1996. The order of termination was received by Respondent No.2 on 29.3.1996. He filed Service Dispute Case No.6/96 before the Tribunal under Section 67 -B of the Orissa Co- operative Societies Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act") to quash the order of termination of his service & to allow him to continue as the 'Secretary of the Society. 4. The Appellant-Society filed written statement in the said Service Dispute Case before the Tribunal contending inter alia that Respondent No.2 being the workman, the service dispute raised by him under Section 67-B of the Act was not maintainable & also pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation & further contended that the appointment of Respondent No.2 had not been approved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society as required under Section 33-A of the Act & Rule 21 (c) of the Bye-laws of the Society & he could have no claim for the post of Secretary & the termination was justified. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the said pleadings conducted an enquiry & framed four issues with regard to maintainability of the dispute, the limitation & the justification of the order of termination' & what orders/relief the Respondent No.2 is entitled to. The same are answered by the Tribunal in favour of Respondent No.2 by recording the findings of fact with valid & cogent reasons after appreciation of legal evidence on record & set aside the order of termination & directed the Society to reinstate Respondent No.2 in his original post as Secretary of the Society & to pay his duty pay & leave salary as claimed by him subject to availability of leave at his credit holding that Respondent No.2 is entitled to all consequential reliefs as Secretary of the Society. The correctness of the same was challenged in the Writ Petition urging various legal contentions reiterating the factual & legal contentions urged before the Tribunal. The correctness of the same was challenged in the Writ Petition urging various legal contentions reiterating the factual & legal contentions urged before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 sought to justify the correctness of the finding & reasons recorded in the Judgment passed by the Tribunal, wl:1ich was impugned in the Writ Petition, contending that as the finding of fact recorded by the fact finding Tribunal on appreciation of material evidence on- record, the same is neither vitiated on erroneous reasoning nor it is error in law, Therefore, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has justified the Judgment of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of termination & prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The Learned Single Judge after elaborately referring to the rival legal contentions & the material evidence on record after referring to the decision of the Kerala High Court in K.M. Ulahannan v. Labaour Court & anr, 1997 [75] FLR 399, (1996) IILJ 1140 Ker; & the decision of this Court in Secretary, Larambha Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Chhuria & anr. (1999) IILJ 419, in support of the contention that the reference to the designation for an employee would not by itself be sufficient to determine whether the said person was or was not a workman. What is to be seen is that de hors his designation what was the nature of duties that was practically required to be done by him. Therefore, the true rest would be to see the nature of the main duties of the employee or in other words, it will have to be seen what in substance the work he does or for what he was, in substance employed &.held that the finding on the contentious issues framed by the Tribunal is legally valid The correctness of the same are challenged in this appeal contending that the findings on the contentious issues are erroneous as 'the same are against the evidence on record, &, therefore, the order of the Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. The Learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration all the relevant facts, viz., that after the regular Secretary was posted Respondent No.2 was reverted & assigned duties of the Addl. Secretary with effect from 23.3.1987, which post was voluntarily accepted by him, & he raised the dispute on 15.6.1996 after more than nine years. The Learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration all the relevant facts, viz., that after the regular Secretary was posted Respondent No.2 was reverted & assigned duties of the Addl. Secretary with effect from 23.3.1987, which post was voluntarily accepted by him, & he raised the dispute on 15.6.1996 after more than nine years. The reversion is challenged & the same is barred by limitation as per Section 67 of the Orissa Co-operative. Societies Act, 1962, which is purely a question of law. The Tribunal has not considered this fact properly & the same is not considered by the Learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that as per provisions of Section 33-A of the Act & Clause 21 (c) of the Bye-laws the approval of appointment of Respondent No.2 as Secretary was not there. Therefore, his appointment is bad in law as the mandatory provisions of the Act & Bye-laws are not complied with. Therefore, the order of appointment is illegally made & the termination of service is without adequate opportunity of being heard cannot be termed as bad in law. The aforesaid important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Learned Single Judge to examine the correctness of the finding recorded on the contentious issue No.(b). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside & the order impugned in the Writ Petition is liable to be quashed. 6. This matter was heard at the time of admission on merits, as this is a termination order of the year 1996 & in the meanwhile fifteen years have elapsed. With reference to the above said legal contentions urged by the Appellant the points that would arise for consideration are i) Whether the findings & reasons recorded on the contentious issues framed on issue Nos.(i), (ii) & (iii) by the Tribunal affirming the same in the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge are either erroneous or error in law would constitute substantial questions of law answer & the same by allowing this appeal? ii) What order? 7. The said points are required to be answered against the Appellant-Society for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that Respondent No.2 was appointed by the President of the Society in the year 1980. ii) What order? 7. The said points are required to be answered against the Appellant-Society for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that Respondent No.2 was appointed by the President of the Society in the year 1980. It is also not in dispute that termination order was passed against Respondent No.2 on 27.3.1996 & till that date he has been continuously working as Secretary of the Society. The order of termination was the subject matter before the Tribunal. Under Section 67-B of the Act the termination order was under challenge before the Tribunal. No doubt, the plea was taken by the Appellant before the Tribunal that Respondent No.2 was posted as Additional Secretary on 23.3.1987, which was voluntarily accepted by him. It is pleaded by the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that from 14.10.1987 to 27.10.1987 as he was sick & he had been filing leave application from time to time on medical grounds by submitting medical certificates. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that leave applied for by him was neither granted nor rejected after recovery from illness, i.e. on 26.8.1993. He had reported for duty, but no work was assigned to him despite request made in this regard & ultimately his service came to be terminated by letter dated 27.3.1996 without issuing any notice & affording opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the fact remains that he was in service as on 27.3.1996, the day on which the order of termination was passed. When he has been allowed to function as Secretary & Addl. Secretary of the Appellant Society, it is not open for the Society to contend that his appointment was not approved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society as per Clause 33-A of the Bye-laws of the Society. Having rendered more than 16 years of continuous service & received of salaries, the service of Respondent No.2 is deemed to have been approved &, at no point of time, objection was raised either by the Committee or by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Having rendered more than 16 years of continuous service & received of salaries, the service of Respondent No.2 is deemed to have been approved &, at no point of time, objection was raised either by the Committee or by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. In this regard, law is well settled by the Supreme Court that in case of continuous service of an employee for considerable period who is appointed & permitted to work in the Society if approval of the Registrar •of the Societies is not obtained the same cannot be put against the employee that the approval of his appointment is required under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act read, with Byelaws as he has been continuously allowed to work for more than sixteen years. The dispute was with regard to legality & validity of the termination order passed against Respondent No.2. Therefore, the question of limitation pleaded before the Tribunal & the finding recorded on the contentious issue No.(c), by the Learned Single Judge is perfectly legal & valid. Therefore, the fact that the dispute is not maintainable was also rightly rejected by the Tribunal & accepted by the Learned Single Judge as the contention urged by the Society placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Secretary, Larambha Service Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) that it is not the designation of the employee is relevant criteria, the nature of duties assigned & performed by the employee are the tests to determine as to whether the employee is a workman or not. 8. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of the appointment & also the duties performed by the employee it has been held by the Learned Single Judge that, the reliance placed. upon the decision by the Appellant's Counsel supports case of Respondent No.2 &, therefore, the finding recorded on issue No. (a) is held to be legal & valid. Apart from the said reasoning, the dispute of a Co-operative Society against Respondent No.2 who is an employee is also maintainable &, therefore, the said question is wholly untenable in law. 9. upon the decision by the Appellant's Counsel supports case of Respondent No.2 &, therefore, the finding recorded on issue No. (a) is held to be legal & valid. Apart from the said reasoning, the dispute of a Co-operative Society against Respondent No.2 who is an employee is also maintainable &, therefore, the said question is wholly untenable in law. 9. The correctness of the finding recorded on issue no(ii) the legality & validity of the order of termination, the Tribunal has elaborately referred to the factual aspects pleaded by both the parties & also examined the plea of Respondent No.2 that he has availed medical leave from 14.10.1987 to 26.8.1993. The case pleaded by the employer is that Respondent No.2 absconded himself from 14.10.1987 unauthorizedly. The resolution of the Board dated 31. 1.1996 was passed after a lapse of eight years from the date of absconding from duty. Respondent No.2 sent an application dated 25.9.1995 accompanied by the joining report dated 26.3.1993, which was turned down by the Management, the same was also considered & thereafter the order of termination passed by the Management was examined with reference to the medical certificate produced by Respondent No.2 showing that he was admitted as an indoor patient at Nalabanata village being put under active care of Ministry of Healing & Wholestick Health of Aska & Physician Dr. Chaitanya Prasad Patnaik was regularly visiting the patient at his door step. The said' medical certificate was not neither taken into consideration nor his services were regularized. Therefore, the Plea of the Society that Respondent No.2 absconded from duty has been rejected & further recorded that Respondent No.2 never absconded from duty rather he was suffering from serious ailment as has been reflected on the medical certificate produced & relied upon by employee. Therefore, Learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly made an observation in its order that in view of the serious ailment he was suffering & prior permission seeking leave could not have been insisted upon. Further, it is held by the Tribunal that Respondent No.2 has made efforts to apprise the Management of the Society from time to time by way of explanation of leave supported by medical certificates, which were not disputed. The Respondent No.2 was made to work as Addl. Secretary, which is not a sanctioned post in the Society under the provisions of the Act & the Bye laws. The Respondent No.2 was made to work as Addl. Secretary, which is not a sanctioned post in the Society under the provisions of the Act & the Bye laws. Therefore, the question of reduction in rank from the post of Secretary to Addl. Secretary on 23.3.1987 is rightly held to be illegal as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act & the principle of natural justice. Further, the termination order is held to be illegal as the Management has committed a great injustice by refusing Respondent No.2 to report for duty pursuant to the Board's meeting held on 31.1.1996 that itself amounts to refusal of employment. Therefore, the termination of, service of Respondent No.2 is arbitrary & illegal, which is not binding on him. The correctness of the same is challenged in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge rightly accepted the findings of the Tribunal by concurring with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. 10. In our considered view, the findings recorded on all the Issues are legal & valid, the same are recorded after proper appreciation of the pleadings & legal evidence on record & the same are in accordance with the law. We, therefore, direct the Society to reinstate Respondent No.2 in his original post with all consequential benefits & with further direction to pay the duty pay & also sick leave benefits, if he has leave at his credit. The concurrent finding of fact of the leaned Single Judge is perfectly legal & valid. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law that would arise for our consideration as we are also satisfied with the findings & reasons recorded by the Member Tribunal on the contentious issues framed on the basis of the rival legal contentions & legal evidence on record. We do not find any good reason whatsoever to interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. I agree. Appeal dismissed.