This appeal by revenue is directed order of AAC granting exemption under section 10(10B) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. assessee was working as Chief Executive (Administration) with New Demco Engg. Products (P.) Ltd. His services were terminated on 14-8- 1976. He raised dispute and matter was settled by arbitration. award dated 17-4-1977 by arbitrator granted him Rs. 28,000 as compensation for termination of his services inclusive of retrenchment compensation and Rs. 10,000 on account of leave salary and Rs. 6,640 on account of commission. assessee claimed that sum of Rs. 28,000 received by him in previous year ended 31-3-1978 corresponding to assessment year 1978-79 was exempt under section 10(10B) as compensation received by workman under award. While ITO rejected this claim, AAC accepted it. Hence, revenue is in appeal. 3. It was contended on behalf of revenue that assessee was chief executive being company secretary and in effect principle office of company and could not be regarded as workman at all. On other hand, it was pointed out on behalf of assessee that he was actually carrying out clerical work and should, therefore, be considered as workman. Reliance was also placed on decision of Tribunal in case of P. L. Goel v. ITO [1985] 12 ITD 137 (Delhi). 4. On consideration of rival submissions, we are of opinion that revenue is entitled to succeed. Under section 17 of Act, salary includes profits in lieu of salary and sub-section (3) defines 'profits in lieu of salary' to include compensation received by assessee from his employer in connection with termination of his employment. But section 10(10B) provides that any compensation of received by workman at time of his retrenchment, to extent of such compensation does not exceed, amount calculated in accordance with provisions of section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, or twenty thousand rupees whichever is less shall be exempted. Obviously, this applies only to compensation received under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. But, since section refers to compensation received under award, assessee claims that compensation which he received under award should also be exempted. But, this argument can be accepted only if assessee is workman. Explanation to section states that expression 'workman' shall have same meaning as in Industrial Disputes Act. scope of section has to be understood in reference to Industrial Disputes Act, because if every person who carries out some work in course of his employment is to be considered as workman, then definition in section 17 would become meaningless. It is seen from cases cited on behalf of assessee and relied upon by AAC that persons concerned in those cases were actually governed by Industrial Dispute Act. On other hand, in present case, assessee could, by no stretch of imagination, be governed by Industrial Disputes Act, because he was company secretary and in charge of company itself. fact that he was carrying out certain clerical work does to make him clerk so as to be regarded as workman. In circumstances, assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 10(10B). We, therefore, reverse order of AAC and restore assessment. appeal is allowed. *** FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER v. S.K.KHANDEKAR