Holding

Class III government servants are not entitled to superannuation at 60 years unless they are artisans employed on a monthly pay in an industrial or work‑charged establishment and are on par with Class IV employees; otherwise they must retire at 58 years.

Summary

The respondents, who were Class III government servants in Orissa, reached the statutory retirement age of 58 and claimed that, as "workmen" under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, they were entitled to remain in service until the age of 60. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal held them to be workmen and allowed the extended superannuation, but the State appealed. The Supreme Court examined the language of Rule 71(a), its note and the second proviso, and held that the benefit of superannuation at 60 applies only to artisans employed on a monthly pay in an industrial or work‑charged establishment and who are on par with Class IV employees. The Court found that the respondents, although performing various technical jobs, were not artisans within the meaning of the Code and therefore must retire at 58. The Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a Class III government servant qualifies as a "workman" (artisan) under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code for the purpose of superannuation at 60 years.
How the terms "artisan", "industrial establishment" and "workcharged establishment" are to be interpreted in the context of the Orissa Service Code.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309
Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962s. Rule 29, s. Rule 3(t), s. Rule 52-A, s. Rule 8

Subjects

superannuationretirement ageservice rulesartisanworkmanOrissa Service CodeClass III employeeClass IV employeeemployment lawservice jurisprudence

Judgment

A STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
v.
ADWAIT CHARAN MOHANTY ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 27, 1995 ·

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATAC(HALA, JJ.]

Ser:vice--Law-Orissa Setvice Cod~ule 71(a), second proviso-Age
.... of superannuation-Government employee~Retirement on completion of 58
years. of age-An artisan workman working in an industrial or workcharged
C establishment but at par with Class IV employee-He is to retire on attaining
age of 60 year~Such an mtisan workman must be on monthly pay of govern-
ment-Word 'attisan '-Meaning.

All the respondents were working in various departments of the
appellant State as Class Ill employees. On attaining the age of superan·
D nuation of 58 years, when they were sought to be retired, they·approached.
the Administrative Tribunal, claiming the benefit of extented age of super· ·.
annuation under second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service <;:ode,
contending that they were workmen within the meaning of the Code. The
. Tribunal held that they were workmen a~d entitled to continue in service
E until they attained the age of 60 years. Hence these appeals.
On behalf of ihe State it was ·contended that all the· respondents
belong to respective subordinate services of the State governed by the
Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962,
framed under Articl~ 309 of the Constitution. According to the appellant
F an artis.an essentially was one who was :J>roducing an article of some kind
with the help of tools. It was alleged that none Of.the respondents could be
treated to be an artisan, therefore, they were riot entitled to continue in
service up~p the age of 60 years. It was contended that the workman, must,
of necessity, by reason of 9efinition, meant one working in an industrial
G or workcharged establishment of the Government. None of the respon-
dents was continuing either in an .industrial establishment or a
workcharged establishment, and the Tribunal committed·grietous error of
law in directing that the respondents shall be retained in service tilll they
attained th.e a1;1e of 60 years. .

H The respondents submitted t~~t any government employee, be he
614
STATE OF ORISSA v. AC. MOHANTY 615

highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, sho~ld be given the benefit A
of the superannuation of 60 years envisaged by the exception to the general
rule in the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. It was
argued that the industrial establishment must be understood broadly and
not in a technical sense. It was prayed that exercising the power under
Article _136, the Supreme Court must decline to interfere with the benefit B
given· by the Tribunal.

The question raised for determination was whether the respondents
were entitled to the benefit of superannuation age of 60 years under the
second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Code. ·

Allowing the appeals, this Court
c
HELD: 1.1. Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and the second
proviso and the note appended to it must be read together harm~niously
,.. to give effect to every part of it. It would indicate that class I, II and III
government servants shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years and class D
IV employees are excluded from its operation. The highly skilled, skilled,
semi-skilled or unskilled workman artisan working in an industrial estab-
lishment or workcharged establishment of the government and governed
by the statutory rules also are 'given the benefit of the age of superannua-
tion on attaining the age of 60 years on par with the Class IV employees. E
Having given the benefit of that class, the workman, be it highly skilled,
sk,illed, semi skilled or unskilled, must be an artisan and is on monthly
rate of pay working in industrial or workcharged establishment of the
government. Such government servant also appear to have intended to be
given the benefit of superannuation age of 60 years. [622·B·D]
F
1.2. The word 'artisan', therefore, has to be understood in common
parlance in a wider sense as an art or an artist or one employed in any of
the industrial art or produces an article of commercial value or utility with
manual dexterity, either by mannual labour or with the help of tools or
machine and brings into existence a product for the sale or service. An G
element of not only creativity would be applied to bring into existence an "
article or commercial goods with dexterity employing manual or technical
labour or with the aid of tools etc. However, it is not exhaustive. Each case
must be considered on its own facts and attendant circumstances to fir.d
whether the workman is an artisan. However, if be is a Class IV govern· H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A ment serva~t, he too is entitled to superannuation on attaining 60 years of
age.' [622·G·H, 623-A]

P1ithpal Singh v. Union of India, (1991] Supp. 1 SCC 32 and Chan-
digarh Administration through the Chief Engineer v. Mehar Singh, [1992)
Supp. 3 SCC 43, relied on.
B
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.Rajappa, [1978] 2 SCC
213 and Des Raj v. State of Punjab,. (1988) 2 SCC 537, distinguished.

1.3. The object of the Rules· appears to be to bring artisan-workman
C governed by the statutory rules but at par with Class IV employee and he
alone is required to retire on completion of 60 years of age but not the
gazetted or non· gazeetted class UI government servants or even in Class
II or I. Therefore, the government employee in Class III service shall retire
on completion of 58 years of age. Even an artisan-worman who was
promoted or appointed to Class III service be it gazetted or non-gazetted
D shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. An artisan-workman who is
working in an industrial or workcharged establishment but is at par with
Class IV employee is to retire on attaining the age of 60 years under the
second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Code. In this view, it is not necessary
to decide whether any industrial establishment in a government depart-
E ment, not specified, expressly, is an industry or a factory as contended by
the respondents. The Code clearly gives benefit to them. One essential
condition to be satisfied is that such an artisan-workman, be it highly
skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, must, of necessity, be on monthly
pay of the government. [624·C·F] ,

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1497 of
1993 etc. etc.

From the Judgmennt and Order dated 6.5.92 of the Orissa Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. ~o. 998 of 1990 ..
G D.P. Gupta, Solicitor .General and A.K. Panda for the Appellants.

Vineet Maheshwari, R.K. Maheshwari, Vik.as Singh, Yunus Malik,
L.R. Singh, Janaranjan Das, B. Parthasarathy, D.P. Mohanty, S.K. Patri,
Krishan Pal Singh, B.B. Sahoo, N.S. Bisht, Mrs. Kirti Mishra, K.K. Gupta
H and Sushil Kumar.Jain for the Respondents.
STATE OF ORISSA v. AC. MOHANTY [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 617

The Ju~gment of the Court was delivered by A
K. RAMASWAMY, ·J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Nos. 4424, 13245-47,
18110-18113/93, 4064/94, 2363/94, SLP 3172/94 (OCC 24681), 2260, 4223,
2588/94, 20136/93, 4882/94, SLP 3173/94 (CC 25141), 9901, 2428, 11084-
11095/94, SLP 3175/94 (OCC 26551), 18784, 19083/94.
B
These appeals rai~e a common question of law whether each of the
respondents was liable to be superannuated only on attaining the age of 60
years. All the respondents have been working iri various departments of
the appellant-State as Draftsman, Senior Draftsman, Architectural Asst.
Draftsman, Architectural Draftsman, Planning Assistant, Carpenter, Heavy C
Vehicle Driver, Mechanic Foreman, Motor Grade Operator, Ferro Printer,
Welder, Concrete Mixture Driver, Junior Machineman, Pump Mechanic,
Pump Driver- cum-Mechanic, etc. etc. On attaining the age of superannua-
tion of 58 years, when they were sought to be retired, they approached the
Administrative Tribunal, Orissa, which in the impugned orders has held D
that they were workmen and entitled to continue in service until they
attained the age of 60 years as provided for under the second proviso to
Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code (for short, 'the Code'). It is not
necessary to deal in detail with .the facts of each case for they are not
different from each other. However, facts of the case of Adwait Charan
Mohanty, respondent in C.A. No. 1497/93 could be referred to as exempler. E
case. While working as a Draftman in the office of the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Cuttack, he attained the age of 58 years on July
_.. 12, 1990. When he was to retire on July 31, 1990, he challenged the notice
of retirement, Annex-A therein, contending that he is a workman within
the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal held him to be a workman and that, p
therefore, he was entitled to continue in service till he completed the age
of 60 years on July 31, 1994 with all the benefits of salary and allowances
etc.

The question is whether the respondents are entitled to continue
until they attained the superannuation age of 60 years? The Orissa Civil G
Services (Classification, Control .and Appeal) Rules, 1962, (for short, 'the
Rules'), defines government servant in Rule .3(t) to mean a person who is
a member of a service or who holds a civil post under the State and.
includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are tem-
porarily placed at the disposal of the Union Government or any other State H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Government or a local or other authority and also any person in the service
of the Union Government or any other State Government or a local or
other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disp9sal of the
State Gvernment. Under Rule 8 the posts under the State other than those
ordinarily held by'persons to whom the Rules do not apply, are by general
or special order of the government classified as (i) State Civil Posts, Class
B I, (ii) State Civil Posts, Class II, (iii) State Civil Posts Class III, (iv) State
Civil Posts, Class IV. Schedule-B of the .Rules enumerates all classes of
posts. Class III service and posts have been enumerated in which all the
afore-stated posts have been specified. Class IV posts have also been
specified c;, Jin none of the Class IV posts, the posts held by the respon-
C dents find place. Rule 29 of the Code defines Ministerial servant to mean
a government servant of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely
clerical~ and any other class of servant specially defined as such by general
or special order of the State Government. The Note appended thereto
defines that Inspectors and Sub-inspectors of Police employed purely on
D clerical duties and Sub-Registrar are not "ministerial servants". ,..

Rule 52-A reads as follow:-

"Unless otherwise expressly provided by the State Gvoernment in
any statutory rules the minimum age-funit for entry into Govern-
ment service shall be as follows :-
E
(i) not below twenty-one years in the case of gazetted Govern-
ment servants in Class I, Class II or Class III services;

(ii) not below tewenty in the case of non- gazetted Government
servants in Class III service other than Ministerial servants;
F
(iii) not below eighteen years in the case of non-gazetted Class
III Ministerial servants and Class IV Government servants.

Rule 71(a) provides superanuuation which is relevant for the purpose
G of this case reads thus :-
"Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of this rule the
date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, except a
ministerial servant who was .in Government service on the 31st
March 1939 and Class IV Government servant, is the date on which
H he or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the condition that
STATE OF ORISSA v. A.C. MOHANTY [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 619
1

a revic:w shall be conducted in respect of the Government servant ,A.
in the 55th year of age in order to determine whether he/she should
be allowed to remain in service up to the date cif the completic;m
of the age of 58 years or retired on completing the age of 55 years
41:'public interest."

The second proviso read as follows :- B

"Provided further that a workman who is governed by these rules
shall ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of 60 years.
He may, however, be required to retire at any time after attaining
the age of 55 years after being given a month's notice or a month's
. pay in lieu thereof, on the ground of impaired health or of being
c
negligent or inefficient in the discharge of his duties. He also may
retire at any time after attaining the age of 55 years, by giving one
month's notice in writing.

Note :- For this purpose, "a workman" means a highly skilled, D
skilled or semi-skilled and unskilled artisan employed on a monthly
rate of pay in any Government establishment."

The Note was subsequently amended with effect from October 13,
1989, which reads :-
E
Note .. For this purpose, "a workman" means a highly skilled,
skilled, ·semi-skilled or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly
rate of pay in any industrial or workcharged establishment".

·The question, therefore, is whether a Class III Government serYant, F
on attaining the superannuation age of 58 years, is required to retire or
whether he is entitled to remain in service until he attains superannuation
age of 60 years as a workman within the meaning of the Code. Shri
Dipanker Gupta, learned Solicitor General, contended that all the respon-
dents belong to respective subordinate services of the State governed by G
the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The
Rules enumerate the class of service. For superannuation of the maximum
age has been prescribed by Rule 71(a). Therefore, the Government ser-
vants in the respective class of services who hold civil post are required to
retire on attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Code. The
expressi9n 'workman' defined in the Code is referable to the workman who H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1995] 1 S.C.R.

A must be an artisan. An artisan is one who practises or cultivates an art as
an artist or one who is employed in. any of the industrial arts s,u~h as
j..

M~chanic. The respondents, therefore, are not artisans. It is also con-
tended that an artisan essentially is one who produces an article of some
kind with the help of tools and brings into existence a product for sale. In
other words, he produce an article of commercial· goods with the aid of
B tools or with an element of creativity introduced by the artisan into' the
~

product which he creates. None of the respondents could be treated to be
an artisan. Therefore, they are not entitled to continue in service ·Up to the -,
age of 60 years. It is also further contended. that the workman, must, of
nece~sity, by reason of definition, means one working in an industrial or
c workcharged establishment of the Government. None of the respondents
is continuing either in an industrial establishment or a workcharged estab-
lishment. . The Tribunal, therefore, committed grievous error of law in
directing that the respondents shall be retained in service till they attained
the age of 60 years.
...:,
.
~

·D
The core contentions of the several learned counsel appearing for
the individual respondents, run thus: The superannuation age of 58 years
having been prescribed for a government servant under the Code, unless
retired on attaining the age of 55 years in public interest on the grounds
enumerated therein by all the employees in Class I, II and III, exception
E has been carved out to Class IV government' servants. The definition of
workman in the secona proviso brought out another exception to the main
part of Rule 71(a). Every workman, highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or
unskilled working either in Class I, II or III services have been treated as· .i...
a class, as being an artisan and given exception regards age of their
F retirement. All of them have been treated as a class and declared that they
are also to retire on attaining the superannuation of 60 years. Otherwise it
would b~ violative of Article 14. Differing instructions were given by .
-t:1 .
£ta~j.~~ departments bring out discriminatory treatment in su11erannuation
:' "'1'.>f tne workman. The word 'workman', in/iliis background, shoulci be
~·.-... understood broadly. Any government employee, be ·he highly. skilled,
'\'..:'
G skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, should be given the benefit of the super· '1 '
annuation of.60 years envisaged by the exception to the general rule in the
second proviso. The industrial. establishment must equally be understood
broadly and not in a technical sense. The workshop etc. maintained in any
~

department of the government or the driver mechanics etc. working in
H different departments and all the respondents in these cases answer the
STATE OF ORISSA v. A.C. MOHANTY [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 621
I

definition of workman. The workman defined under· the Indust~ial Disputes A
Act has been widely interpreted by this Court in diverse judgments. The
Driver of the government vehicle was also held to be workman. In the light
/
of the service jurisprudence, the respondents have rightly been declared to
be entitled to superannuation on attaining 60 years. The Tribunal has
rightly given the benefit to the respondents. Exercising the power under ·· B
Article 136, this Court may decline to interfere with the benefit given by
the Tribunal. It is also contended that they have worked pursuant to the
orders of the Tribunal and that, therefore, they should not be saddled with
the liability to refund the amount already _Jaid by way of salary and
allowances.
c
The crucial question iswhether the respondents are entitled to the
benefit of superannuation age of 60 years. Government ser\rants are
govern~d by the Statutory Rules. The Code prescribes the minimum age
required for a person to enter into the gO\ crnment service and the age of
his superannuation. Rule 71(a) clearly envisages superannuation of all the D
government servants except the Ministerial servants continuing as on
March 31, 1939 and Class IV servants. In this case, we are not concerned
with the Class IV government servants and none of the Ministerial servants
continuing as on March 31, 1939, remains in service. All others including
Class III government servants shall be required to retire on attaining the
age of 58 years unless the government exercises its power of review which E
shall be conducted by the State Government in ·the 55th year of the
government servant. Whether the government servant should be allowed to
remain in service up to the date of completion of the age of 58 years or
retire or completing the age of 55 years in the public interest in a matter
which depends on exercise of power conferred on the government in that F
regards. Per force every government servant in Class I to III specified in
the Rules, read with Schedule-B of the Rules, is required to retire from
service on attaining the age of 58 years subject to the condition of the
exercising of the power by the State Government in the public interest as
stated supra. It1s not in dispute that all the respondents are in Class III
service. Perforce, therefore, they shall be required to retire on attaining the. G
age of 58 years. ·

The question is whether they are entitled to the benefit. of the second
proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Code. It is unfortunate that \he Tribunal had
tur~ed its blind eye to the rules and blissfully omitted to advert to the main H
I
-~

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199~] 1 S.C.R.

A part of Rule 71(a) of ~he Code and the Rules read with S_chedule-B of the
Rules. The entire focus was .concentrated ·only on the consideration of the
word 'workman' and the 'establishment' enumera~ed in the Note to the
proviso. Rule 71(a) of the Code and the second proviso and the note
appended to it must be read together harmoniously to give effect to every
part of it. A reading thereof would indicate that Class I, II and III
B government servants shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years and Class
IV· employees are excluded from its operation. The highly skilled, skilled,
semi-skilled or unskilled workman- artisan working in an industrial estab-
lishment or workcharged establishment of the government and governed
by the statutory rules also are given the benefit of the .age of superannua-
C tion on attaining the age ·of 60 years on par with the Class IV employees.
It is settled service jurisprudence and all the Rules of the Central Guvern-
ment and' the State Governments, prescribe the superannuation of a
government servant working as Class IV employee as on attaining the age
of superannuation of 60 years. Having given the benefit of that class, the
D workman, be it highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, must be an
artisan and is on monthly rate of pay working in industrial or workcharged
establishment of the government. Such government servant also appears to
· have intended to be given the benefit of superannuation age of 60 years.

The amended Note clearly brings out the above object although it is
.E inaptly woven out and elusively couched. For the purpose of the proviso,
a workman· means highly sikilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan
employed on a monthly rate of pay ·in an industrial or workcharged
establishment. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (3rd Ed.) Vol~I, p.103, 1-
defmed artisan means - "1. one who practices and cultivates art; an artist.
F 2.one occupied in any industrial art; a mechanic handicraftsman." Artist
has been defined to mean "one who pursues some practical science; a
follower of manual art". Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
Vol-I, defines artisan "one who practices an art; 2. one trained to manual
dexterity or .skill in a trade." Black's Law Dictionary defines artisan "one
skilled in some kind of trade, craft, or art requiring manual dexterity, 'e.g.
G a carpenter, plumber, tailor, mechanic." The word 'artisan', therefore, has 'f I

to be understood in common parlance in a wider sense a.s an art or ati artist
or one employed in any of the industrial art or produces an article of
commercial value or utility with manual dexterity, either by manual labour
or with· the help ·of tools or machine and brings' into existence a product
H for the sale or service. An element of not only creativit:y would be applied
'
)_

STATE OF ORISSAv. AC. MOHANTY [K. RAMASWAMY, J.) 623
~
to bring into existence an article or co~mercial goods 'with dexterity A
employing manual or technical labour.or with the aid of tools etc. Ho,rever,
it is not exhaustive. Each case must be considered on its own facts and
attendant circumstances to find whether the workman is an artisim. How-
f

ever, if he is a Class IV government servant, he too is entitled to superan-
nuation on attaining 60 years of age.
B
In Prithipal Singh v. Union of India, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 32, Driver
of a staff car who is also a mechanic who knows repairing the engine or
r-- vehicle was held to be an artisan. In Chandigarh A(,lministration through the
Chief Eingineer v. Mehar Singh, [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 43, this Court held that
a workman within the meaning of Clause (b) of Fundamental Rules, 56, c
has to satisfy the twin tests of workman and also an artisan employed on a.
monthly pay in an industrial or workcharged establishment, to qualify for
superannuation at the age of 60 years. Therein since the facts were not
clearly established, this Court remitted the appeal to the Tribunal after
laying down the law, and directed the Tribunal to decide the question. In
D
'I'
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213,
a Bench of seven Judges of this Court considered the question under the
Industrial Disputes Act - whether the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage
Board is an industry. In that case, it was a statutory Board under consider a-
tion and not a government department. In that context, this Court while
interpreting the word 'industry', the question whether the government E
department is an industry or not was specifically left open. Though the
word, 'industry' has been amended under the Industrial Disputes Act, the
amended definition as on date has not been brought into force. Therefore,
it renders little assistance. It is true that in Des Raj v. State of Punjab, [1988]
....
2 SCC 537, a Bench of two Judges of this Court, followingBangalore Water
F
Supply and Sewerage Board's case, held that Irrigation Department of the
State Government of Punjab an industry within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act. We are not concerned with the dispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Therefore, the need to E:'io .into the controversy ,of the
. correctness of the ratio of Des Raj's case does not arise. Suffice it to state
that all the respondents are governed by the statutory rules made under 0
... ')'
proviso to Article 309. oflhe~eonstitution. Therefore,. the interpretation
should be confined to the language employed therein.
. .
If the interpretation sought to be put up by the counsel for the
respondents are given acceptance, it would render the very object of the H
_)
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R. t

·A R~les ridiculous and all Classes of government servants would be .brought
into the vortex of artisan. Class III consists of gazetted as well as non-
gazetted employees. The government servants in Class III shall retire on
completion of 58 years. If the interpretation that every artisan is a workman
if he produces an article with dexterity or service with dexterity by manual
B or technical labour, he would be entitled to remain in service till the
completion of 60 years. For example, even a Director of Town Planning or
Chief Architect could be considered to be an artisan and, therefore, they
too would be workmen entitled to superanuuation up to the completion of
60 years of age. Similarly serveral officers in specified governmental ac~
tivities would answer the definition of workman, in particular, the Note to
C the proviso. It does not appear to be the object. As stated earlier, the object
. appears to be to bring artisan-workman governed by the statutory rules but
at par with Class IV employee and he alone is required to retire on
completion of 60 years of age but not the gazetted or non-gazetted Class
III government servants or even in Class II or I.
D Therefore, we are of the considered view that the government
employee in Class 'III service shall retire on completion of 58 years of age.
Even an artisan-workman who was promoted or appointed to Class III
service be it gazetted or non-gazetted shall retire on completion of 58 years
of age. An artisan-workman who is wo.rking in an industrial or workcharged
E establishment but he is at par with Class IV employee is to retire on
attaining the age of 60 years under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the
Code. In this view, it is not necessary to decide whethe.r any industrial
establishment in a government department, not specified, expressly, is an
industry or a factory as contended by the re~pondents. The Code clearly
F gives benefit to them. One essential condition to be satisfied is that such
an artisan-workman, be it highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled,
must of necessity, be on monthly pay of the government.

~,,c~........ Thus c~nsidered, the Tribunal has committed grievous and manifest
et;ror of law in not considering the cases on hand in this perspective. It has
G solely and wholly· concentrated on the definition of the word 'workman'
and the 'industrial establishment' to give the benefit ·of extended superan-
nuation to the respondents. Since by the interpretation of the Tribunal, the
respondents, until the order was stayed by. this Court, remained in service
and rendered the service to the State, we direct the appellant not to recover
H any pay and allowances paid to them till they are made to retire pursuant
STATE OF ORISSA v. AC. MOHANTY (K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 625

to the orders passed by ~his Court. Before parting with the case, we would A
like to point out that a cursory look into the Code would show existence
of yearning gaps and ad-hoc amendments are made from time to time. It
is high time to have fresh look and revamp the Code in the light of the
developments of service jurispurdence.

The appeals are accordingly allowed and the O.As. are dismissed but B
in the circumstances, without costs. In some of the cases, namely, C.A. Nos.
676-679/94 and SLP No. 2260/94, appeals had been filed against the interim
orders and this Court has suspended all the orders. In the light of the law
laid down, the Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of all these
cases according to law.
c
A.G. Appeals allowed.