JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J This is workman's petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the award dated 30.04.2012 given by learned Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani in Adjudication Case No. 46 of 1999. By the said award, learned Industrial Tribunal declined to answer the reference by holding that petitioner is not a workman. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Trainee in Century Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., Lalkuan, Nainital on 01.11.1990. Upon completion of training, he was appointed as Supervisor Grade S-2 w.e.f. 01.11.1991. Petitioner was covered under Employees State Insurance Scheme since May, 1992 till his termination. He was promoted as Junior Officer (Electrical) w.e.f. 12.02.1996 and subsequently, vide order dated 22.04.1998, his services were terminated. 3. Feeling aggrieved by termination of his service, petitioner raised an industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation proceedings, Competent Authority referred the following dispute for adjudication to learned Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani vide order dated 06.09.1999. “Whether termination of service of workman Sri Hemant Kumar Joshi, Junior Officer by the employer is justified and/or legal? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to with which other particulars?” 4. The aforesaid reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 46 of 1999 before the learned Industrial Tribunal. The workman filed a claim statement stating that his services were terminated without any reason or justification vide order dated 22.04.1998. It was further contended that neither any warning, nor show cause notice was given to the workman before terminating his services and moreover, no domestic enquiry was conducted in the matter. It was further pleaded by the workman that he was not given retrenchment compensation, as required under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The employer filed an objection stating that petitioner was appointed as Junior Officer and his duties are managerial in nature, therefore, Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. In sum and substance, the objection raised was that since petitioner is not a workman, therefore, he cannot invoke provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act against his termination. 6. Subsequently, a written statement was also filed by the employer reiterating the stand taken in his objection and it was further submitted that service conditions of the petitioner are governed by Rules and Regulations of the Company and the terms of his appointment order. 6. Subsequently, a written statement was also filed by the employer reiterating the stand taken in his objection and it was further submitted that service conditions of the petitioner are governed by Rules and Regulations of the Company and the terms of his appointment order. Learned Industrial Tribunal after considering the material on record held that petitioner does not come within the definition of “Workman”, therefore, the dispute raised by him cannot be treated as an industrial dispute. This award given by learned Industrial Tribunal on 30.04.2012 is under challenge in this petition. 7. I have heard Mr. A.N. Sharma, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 8. Learned Industrial Tribunal has referred to a judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. Vs D. Samuel & others, (1998) 80 FLR 684 and observed that nomenclature and designation of the post cannot be determinative test for ascertaining whether an employee falls in the category of Workman or not. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 232 was dealing with a question whether a person appointed as Legal Assistant answers the description of a “Workman” or not? Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the entire case law on the point, held in paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment that:- 21. It is now trite that the issue as to whether an employee answers the description of a workman or not has to be determined on the basis of a conclusive evidence. The said question, thus, would require full consideration of all aspects of the matter. 22. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to make an award in the dispute would depend upon a finding as to whether the employee concerned is a workman or not. When such an issue is raised, the same being a jurisdictional one, the findings of the Labour Court in that behalf would be subject to judicial review. 10. In a subsequent judgment rendered in the case of Anand Regional Coop. When such an issue is raised, the same being a jurisdictional one, the findings of the Labour Court in that behalf would be subject to judicial review. 10. In a subsequent judgment rendered in the case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowners Union Ltd. Vs Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, (2006) 6 SCC 548 , Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the tests, which should be applied for determining whether an employee is a workman within the meaning of the term as defined in Industrial Dispute Act or not? Paragraph Nos.13 to 18 of the said judgment are extracted below:- “13. The ingredients of the definition of “workman” must be considered having regard to the following factors: (i) Any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work, but does not include any such person employed in any industry for hire or reward. (ii) There must exist a relationship of employer and employee. (iii) The persons inter alia excluded are those who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. 14. For determining the question as to whether a person employed in an industry is a workman or not; not only the nature of work performed by him but also terms of the appointment in the job performed are relevant considerations. 15. Supervision contemplates direction and control. While determining the nature of the work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue importance need not be given for the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to, the class to which he belongs. What is needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under him whose work is required to be supervised. Being in charge of the section alone and that too it being a small one and relating to quality control would not answer the test. 16. The precise question came up for consideration in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. V Workmen wherein it was held: “3. The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity.” 17. A person indisputably carries on supervisory work if he has power of control or supervision in regard to recruitment, promotion, etc. The work involves exercise of tact and independence. 18. Judging by the said standard, we are of the opinion that the first respondent did not come within the purview of the exclusionary clause of the definition of workman. Ananda Bazar Patrika was followed by the Court in a large number of cases.” 11. Learned Industrial Tribunal has held that the petitioner is not a workman, therefore, the dispute raised is not an industrial dispute by referring to his statement, where he had stated that it was his duty to maintain machines in Electrical Equipment Department and that whenever he got free time after preparing power reports, he used to get the machines repaired through electricians. Thus, based on this statement, learned Industrial Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that petitioner's duty was supervisory in nature, as he was not doing the work by himself, but was getting it done through electricians. Therefore, learned Industrial Tribunal recorded a finding that petitioner was not a workman, but was serving in supervisory/managerial capacity. 12. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding recorded by learned Industrial Tribunal. According to him, petitioner had to discharge multifarious duties, which is apparent from his deposition before learned Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Industrial Tribunal to find out, which was his principal or dominant duty and which were ancillary duties performed by him. 13. 12. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding recorded by learned Industrial Tribunal. According to him, petitioner had to discharge multifarious duties, which is apparent from his deposition before learned Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Industrial Tribunal to find out, which was his principal or dominant duty and which were ancillary duties performed by him. 13. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that merely because petitioner was required to perform some additional duties will not change the status from workman to a manager/supervisor. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the learned Industrial Tribunal has perfunctorily recorded the finding regarding petitioner's status. According to him, this issue was required to be determined on the basis of conclusive evidence, after full consideration of all aspects of the matter. 15. From perusal of the impugned award, it is apparent that an Industrial Tribunal has recorded the finding that petitioner is not a workman on the basis of his deposition, where he stated that it was his duty to maintain the machine in Electrical Equipment Department and whenever he got free time after preparing power reports, he used to get the machines repaired through electrician. From the said statement made by the petitioner in his deposition, it is apparent that he was performing multifarious duties, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Industrial Tribunal to make further inquiry as to which is his principal duty and which are the anciliary duties performed by him, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 490 . 16. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was paid remuneration, which was more than Rs. 1600/- as specified in Section 2 (s)(iv) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, he is excluded from the definition of “Workman”. The said submission looks attractive in the first blush, but on a deeper scrutiny, the said contention cannot be countenanced. The wage limit of Rs.1600/- was fixed in Section 2(s)(iv) several decades ago, when money had more purchasing power. With the passage of time, the said wage limit has become otiose and a person serving in the lowest rung of employment in any establishment today is getting many times more wages than what is specified in Section 2(s)(iv) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. With the passage of time, the said wage limit has become otiose and a person serving in the lowest rung of employment in any establishment today is getting many times more wages than what is specified in Section 2(s)(iv) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Industrial Disputes Act is a beneficial legislation, therefore, it requires a liberal interpretation. 17. In such view of the matter, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned Industrial Tribunal was required to hold an inquiry to ascertain the principal duty of the petitioner as Junior Officer (Electrical), which unfortunately was not done. Learned Industrial Tribunal was alive to the settled position in law that designation cannot be determinative of status of an employee, yet it did not delve into the question regarding principal duty of the petitioner and returned a finding on the question by simply relying upon one stray statement made by him in his deposition. 18. In such view of the matter, the impugned award given by the learned Industrial Tribunal on 30.04.2012 deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani for reconsideration of the matter on the preliminary issue “as to whether petitioner is a “Workman” or not.” Consequently, Adjudication Case No.46 of 1999 shall stand restored before learned Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani. 20. Needless to mention here that it shall be open to the parties to lead additional evidence before the learned Industrial Tribunal in support of their case. Since, the matter is pending since 1999, therefore, it is hoped and expected that the learned Industrial Tribunal shall make all endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.