As per case facts, respondents, working in various departments (Draftsman, Driver, Mechanic, etc.) in the appellant-State, were sought to be retired at 58 years. They approached the Administrative Tribunal, Orissa, ... arguing they were 'workmen' under the Orissa Service Code and thus entitled to continue until 60 years. The Tribunal agreed with them. The State appealed this decision. The question arose whether these respondents are entitled to continue in service until they attain the superannuation age of 60 years, specifically under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, which allows 'workmen' to retire at 60, or if they must retire at 58 as per the general rule for Class 3 government servants. This involved interpreting the term 'workman' and 'industrial establishment' within the context of the service rules. Finally, the Supreme Court held that government employees in Class III service shall retire at 58 years. It clarified that an artisan-workman, even if promoted to or appointed in Class III service, would generally retire at 58. The exception for retiring at 60 years applies only to artisan-workmen who are classified at par with Class 4 employees and are working in an industrial or workcharged establishment, and are paid on a monthly basis. The Tribunal erred by broadly interpreting 'workman' and 'industrial establishment' without considering the specific service classifications and the overall scheme of the Orissa Service Code. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders, but directed the appellant not to recover any pay and allowances already paid to the respondents for the period they continued service based on the Tribunal's earlier orders. The Court also noted the need for a fresh look and revamp of the Code.