JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Even after the order dated 25.01.2016, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Any request for pass over or adjournment is also not made. The cause list reflects that today also learned advocate for the petitioner has filed leave note. 2. In this view of the matter, the Court has considered it appropriate to decide the matter after hearing the learned advocate for the respondent and after considering the material available on record. Thus, the petition is decided by separate order, though in absence of learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent. Though served, none for petitioner. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate and necessary to mention that the learned advocate for the respondent fairly submitted that in view of the decision dated 27.11.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2014 and connected matters, wherein it is held that the persons working on the posts of Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer and higher posts in the petitioner-board do not come within the meaning of term "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Special Leave Petition against the said decision is rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court the subject matter of present petition does not require further adjudication on merits and the matter can be disposed of in light of the said decision inasmuch as the provision related to age of superannuation applicable to the category of workman would not be available to the persons/officers in the category/cadre of Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer and above. 4. In view of the said submission by learned advocate for the respondent, detailed examination of the contentions raised in the petition or detailed adjudication of the matter is not required. In present case, the petitioner-board is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.10.2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 716/98, whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the order passed by the petitioner-board, whereby the petitioner-board relieved the respondent who was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant in November 1961 and thereafter he was promoted as Dy. Engineer w.e.f. 5.7.1971 and thereafter in March-1985 he was promoted as Executive Engineer, when he attained the age prescribed for superannuation i.e. 58 years and the learned Tribunal, after setting aside the said order passed by the petitioner-board, directed the petitioner-board to continue the respondent in service until he completes 60 years of age or to pay wages for the said period. Learned Tribunal granted declaration that the respondent was entitled to continue in service until he completes 60 years of age i.e. until 31.01.1996. 5. In view of the fact that it is now finally adjudicated and settled that the persons/officers in the cadre of Deputy Engineer and above, e.g. the Deputy Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer etc. do not come within meaning of the term "Workman". It is also not in dispute that in the petitioner-board, the age for superannuation prescribed for persons/officers who are not in the category of workman i.e. "for Non-workman" is 58 years and it is only in case of the persons who are in the category of workman and who come within the purview of term "Workman" that 60 years of age is prescribed as the age for superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned award is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid position, as required age of superannuation. 6. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute against the board's action/order relieving him from service when he completed 58 years of age on the ground that he had attained and completed the age prescribed for superannuation. The petitioner-board took into account present respondent's date of birth i.e. 31.01.1936 and applied the provision regarding age for superannuation applicable to the persons employed in the "Non-workman category" and relieved him from service with effect from 31.01.1994. The respondent felt aggrieved by the said action and order of the petitioner board and raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad vide order of Reference dated 24.1.1994. The said reference was registered as Reference (ITN) No. 716/98. In the proceedings, present respondent i.e. original claimant claimed that he had joined the service with the petitioner-board with effect from 13.07.1961 as Assistant Operator thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant in November 1961 and thereafter he was promoted as Dy. The said reference was registered as Reference (ITN) No. 716/98. In the proceedings, present respondent i.e. original claimant claimed that he had joined the service with the petitioner-board with effect from 13.07.1961 as Assistant Operator thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant in November 1961 and thereafter he was promoted as Dy. Engineer w.e.f. 5.7.1971 and thereafter in March-1985 he was promoted as Executive Engineer. The respondent-claimant also mentioned in his statement of claim that he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from March-1985. He also claimed that at the relevant time i.e. in March-1985, he was working with the petitioner-board as Executive Engineer. He claimed that according to the rules and regulations applicable in the petitioner-board, the age for superannuation for the persons in the category of workman, was fixed at 60 years of age. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent claimant claimed that in view of the nature of duties performed by him and/or in view of his duties and powers conferred on him, he would come within the purview of term "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore, he was entitled to continue in service until he completed age of 60 years. On such premise, the respondent-claimant prayed for declaration that he was entitled to continue in service until he attained/completed 60 years of age, which was prescribed age for superannuation for persons in category "Workman". He also prayed that the action of relieving him with effect from 31.01.1994 should be set aside and petitioner-board should be directed to continue him in service until 31.07.1996 and to declare that he is entitled to continue in service until 31.07.1996. The said claim and the reference were opposed by present petitioner-board. The petitioner-board asserted that the respondent-claimant was employed in the category of Class-I Officer and his salary was more than Rs. 1,600/- and that therefore, by any standard, the respondent-claimant cannot be considered workman or a person employed in category of workman. The said claim and the reference were opposed by present petitioner-board. The petitioner-board asserted that the respondent-claimant was employed in the category of Class-I Officer and his salary was more than Rs. 1,600/- and that therefore, by any standard, the respondent-claimant cannot be considered workman or a person employed in category of workman. The petitioner-board claimed and asserted before the learned Tribunal that the respondent/claimant was a person employed in, and was working in category/cadre of, "Non-workman" and that therefore, the age for superannuation prescribed for the persons in the category of workman was not applicable to and available to the respondent-claimant but he would be governed by the rules, regulations and provisions applicable to the persons employed in non-workman category. The respondent also claimed that according to the applicable and prevailing rules, regulations and provisions thereunder the age for superannuation prescribed for persons/officers employed and working in "non-workman" category is 58 years (and 60 years of age is prescribed as age for superannuation only for the persons employed in category of workman). With such reply and explanation, the petitioner-board justified its action and the order and opposed the claim of the respondent. 7. The contesting parties placed their respective evidence on record of the reference before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal heard the submissions on behalf of the respondent-claimant and the petitioner-board and after considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the Executive Engineer employed in the petitioner-board would come within the purview of the term "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having reached to such conclusion, the learned Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned award with aforesaid directions and declaration. Thus, the impugned directions are based on the conclusion that the respondent workman - who was working as Executive Engineer - comes within the purview of the term "workman". 8. The petitioner-board is aggrieved by the said award. It is claimed in the petition that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the respondent would come within the purview of definition of term "Workman" and consequently, he was entitled to continue in service until he completed 60 years of age and attained the age for superannuation prescribed for workman. The petitioner-board is aggrieved by the said award. It is claimed in the petition that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the respondent would come within the purview of definition of term "Workman" and consequently, he was entitled to continue in service until he completed 60 years of age and attained the age for superannuation prescribed for workman. It is claimed by petitioner-board that the respondent-claimant was working in the supervisory and managerial category and he was an officer in Class-I category and his salary was more than Rs. 1,600/- and that therefore, he would come within the purview of definition of term "Workman" and consequently, he was not entitled to raise industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and reference at the behest or on behalf of the respondent-claimant or in respect of the dispute related to the respondent-workman was not maintainable. The petitioner-board has also claimed that since the respondent-workman was working in non-workman category, the age for superannuation applicable in his case would be 58 years, and therefore, the action of the petitioner-board cannot be said to be illegal. 9. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent fairly submitted, at the outset, that in view of the decision by Hon'ble Division Bench holding that the persons employed on the post of Deputy Engineer and above would not come within the meaning of term "Workman", now in view of such pronouncement by the Court and the legal situation which has emerged in view of the said decision, it is not possible to support and justify the decision by the learned Tribunal. 10. In present case, it is not in dispute that according to applicable rules and regulations, the age prescribed for superannuation for the persons in "Non-workman" category is 58 years. 11. It is also not in dispute that the 60 years of age is prescribed as age for superannuation only in respect of the person employed in the category of "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. 12. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in January, 1994, the respondent-claimant was employed and working as Executive Engineer. 13. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 31.1.1936 and that therefore, he would complete 58 years of age on 31.01.1994. 14. 12. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in January, 1994, the respondent-claimant was employed and working as Executive Engineer. 13. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 31.1.1936 and that therefore, he would complete 58 years of age on 31.01.1994. 14. When the above mentioned factual aspects are not in dispute, it becomes necessary to take into account the decision dated 27.11.2014 whereby it is held that the persons working in the category of Deputy Engineer or on any post/category of Deputy Engineer and above the post of Deputy Engineer do not come within the meaning and scope of the term "Workman" defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. 15. In view of the said decision, it becomes clear that the present respondent cannot be termed as "Workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the petitioner-board of applying the provision related to age for superannuation in respect of the persons in "Non-workman" category, cannot be faulted. Consequently, the learned Tribunal could not have interfered with and set aside the said decision and action/order of the petitioner-board, whereby the respondent-claimant was relieved from service when he completed 58 years of age. Moreover, in view of the above facts, actually the reference at the behest of and/or by or on behalf of the respondent could not have been maintained and entertained by the learned Tribunal. 16. In present case, the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that the respondent-claimant would come within the purview of the term "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and that he was a "workman". The learned Tribunal also erred in holding that since the respondent-claimant was "workman", the reference was maintainable. The learned Tribunal also erred in applying the provision related to age for superannuation applicable to the persons employed and working in the category of "workman" to the respondent though the respondent-claimant cannot be treated and considered as workman. 17. The learned Tribunal also committed error in not accepting the Board's contention that the respondent-claimant was employed and he was working in "Non-workman" category and that therefore, the provision related to the age for superannuation prescribed for persons in "Non workman" category would be applicable in his case. 18. 17. The learned Tribunal also committed error in not accepting the Board's contention that the respondent-claimant was employed and he was working in "Non-workman" category and that therefore, the provision related to the age for superannuation prescribed for persons in "Non workman" category would be applicable in his case. 18. The findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal, the decision of the learned Tribunal and the final direction issued by the learned Tribunal are erroneous and unsustainable and contrary to the decision dated 27.11.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2014. Therefore, also impugned award is not sustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award dated 25.10.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference (ITN) No. 716/98 is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. Consequently, the impugned award is set aside and petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.