JUDGMENT U. N. Sinha, J. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Bihar sugar Works, Pacrukhi, in the district of Saran, praying that the award given by the Industrial Tribunal of Bihar on the 29th April, 1967 in Reference No. 38 of 1966 may be quashed, with respect to the first point decided in the award against the petitioner, the second point having been decided in its favour. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the materials on record may be summarised as follows: The petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing sugar and having abolished its transport section on account of selling away of its tractor trailer fleet, it had applied to the Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, for retrenchment of eighteen workmen. The Commissioner of Labour had permitted retrenchment of sixteen out of these eighteen workmen by an order passed on the 27th March, 1962. [A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure A]. In consequence, sixteen workmen were retrenched, including two tractor drivers named Babulal and Bhagelu. Subsequently, Babuhl and Bhlgelu were employed by the company, again, on other jobs, on less pay than what they were drawing as tractor drivers. Apparently, this became a bone of contention and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, by the State Government, in the following terms :- "Whether Shri Babulal and Shri Bhagelu are entitled to same wages on re-employment as they were drawing before being retrenched?” According to the written statement filed on behalf of these two workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, they had been working as truck drivers and then the posts had been abolished and they were employed again as unskilled workers, on a temporary basis and were, later on made permanent. According to this written statement, these two workmen were drawing Rs. 119/- per month before retrenchment, whereas they were being paid Rs. 76/- per month for their work as unskilled workers. The written statement mentioned: "That they should have been given the old wage which they were drawing at the time of the retrenchment." There was another dispute about paid holiday, with which matter this Court is not concerned at present, as this point has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the employers. The written statement mentioned: "That they should have been given the old wage which they were drawing at the time of the retrenchment." There was another dispute about paid holiday, with which matter this Court is not concerned at present, as this point has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the employers. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Sugar Works, the engagements of these two workmen was referred to in the following words :- "That these workmen were re-engaged in the available vacancies of coolies and have been working as such." The evidence given before the Presiding Officer on behalf of the workmen was that Babulal was working as a coolie and he also used to work, at times, as a loco-driver and he used to get the difference between the wages of loco-driver and that of a coolie on the days on which he used to work as a loco-driver. The Presiding Officer has referred to Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and has held that Babulal and Bhagelu are entitled to receive the same wages on re-employment as they were drawing before their retrenchment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 25H has been wrongly applied to this case, and according to the learned counsel for the Union, the Presiding Officer has rightly applied Section 25H for his conclusions. The two decisions upon which learned counsel for the parties have relied for their respective contentions• are, the case of (1) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. V. Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh and others, a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in 1963-I Labour Law Journal 770, and the case of (2) Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited V. Bhimrao Baliram Gajbhiya, a decision of the Bombay High Court, reported in 1965-II Labour Journal 402. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court and the learned counsel for the Union, opposite party no. 3, has relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. But, I think, both these decisions are distinguishable, and for the reasons given hereafter, it must be held, that, Section 25H in the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted to the instant case. 3, has relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. But, I think, both these decisions are distinguishable, and for the reasons given hereafter, it must be held, that, Section 25H in the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted to the instant case. Section 25 runs thus:- "Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons." What had happened in the Andhra Pradesh High Court case was as follows: The appellant company was engaged in manufacture and sale of cement and concrete articles and had a number of branches, one such having located at Ramavarapaddu near Vijaywada. By notice dated the 12th May, 1958, all workmen in Ramavarapaddu Factory were individually notified that with effect from the 12th June, 1958 they would be retrenched, as the factory had no orders and sufficient stock of steel was not available. Thereafter, the workmen, numbering 40, were retrenched and were paid retrenchment compensation. The appellant company thereafter issued a notice to the retrenched workmen on the 5th September, 1958 stating that they were in need of some unskilled workers on temporary basis in their R. G. C. pipe manufacturing job in industry and they would be recruited on the 12th September, 1958. An the retrenched workmen were given notice of re-employment. All the retrenched workmen reported themselves to duty on the appointed date. A full day rate of -/12/-annas, besides an allowance of -/11/- per day was offered. These wages being lower than those paid to the persons who offered themselves for re-employment, some of them demanded that the wages prevailing before retrenchment should be paid. The management having refused to do so, 14 of the workmen did not join duty. On a report by the affected workmen conciliation proceedings were initiated. But no settlement would be effected. Thereupon, the management engaged new hands on their own terms. The management having refused to do so, 14 of the workmen did not join duty. On a report by the affected workmen conciliation proceedings were initiated. But no settlement would be effected. Thereupon, the management engaged new hands on their own terms. In due course, the dispute was referred to adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the following terms:- "How far the employers of the Indian Hume Pipe Company, Ramavarapaddu Branch are justified in offering to the retrenched workers at a lower rate at the time of re-employment than what they were getting at the time of retrenchment." The stand taken before the Labour Court by the workmen was that the attempt of the management to designate all the workmen who were working in the factory for a long number of years and performing skilled and semi-skilled jobs, as unskilled workmen and to offer them a full day rate of Rs. 1.7.0 amounted to unfair labour practice and that the 14 workmen who declined to join duty should be rain stated on the emoluments that they were getting prior to 12th June, 1958. Back wages were also claimed. It will appear from these facts, that the workmen's contention there was that they had been performing skilled and semi-skilled work before retrenchment and that they were being put back in similar work, but with lower emoluments. This is clear from the observations made by the learned Judges at page 775 in the following words: "It appears from the award and from the judgment under appeal that an attempt was made by the appellant to show that there were no skilled or semi-skilled workers in the factory at any time and there were only unskilled workers for the purpose of justifying the offer of Rs 1-7.0. per day as for an unskilled worker. But this failed. The material on record which was discussed both by the Labour Court and our learned brother establishes that there were skilled and semi-skilled workers who had put in a number of years of service and that the character and type of the work of the factory which they were expected to do, had not undergone any change. It follows that the management was really seeking to convert skilled and semi-skilled workers into unskilled workers by offering a full rate of Rs 1-7-0. per day as wages, inclusive of dearness allowance. It follows that the management was really seeking to convert skilled and semi-skilled workers into unskilled workers by offering a full rate of Rs 1-7-0. per day as wages, inclusive of dearness allowance. That being the real position there was no justification for the appellant to treat the respondents as unskilled workers and offer reduced wages." In my opinion, this was the crux of the situation and this was the real basis of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. That is to say, the retrenched workers were being reemployed in the same category of work, wrongly describing them as unskilled workers. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court differed from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the interpretation of Section 25 H of the Act, but, in my opinion, this case is also not applicable to the instant case, as the following facts from the Bombay case will indicate. A workman had been retrenched and had been paid retrenchment compensation. At the time when he was retrenched a proceeding under Section 38 A of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 was pending and in that proceeding the workmen became entitled to a basic wage of 86 np per day in addition to dearness allowance at Rs 1. 75 per day on the date of his retrenchment. He was re-employed. According to the employment order, he was to be paid a basic wages of 62 np and dearness allowance of Rs 1. 75. Under the award, 62 np per day had been fixed as the basic pay for new entrants. The workman concerned made an application under Section 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, contending that he was entitled to a basic wage of 86 np per day, apart from the dearness allowance. His complaint was that he was being paid 24 np less per day, The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court held that the workman was not entitled to receive payment at the old rate. According to the learned Judges, the only benefit that Section 25 H had conferred on the workmen was one of preference in securing re-employment. It was held that re-employment did not necessarily imply that the taking back into employment or service must be on the same terms and conditions to which the employee was entitled previously. According to the learned Judges, the only benefit that Section 25 H had conferred on the workmen was one of preference in securing re-employment. It was held that re-employment did not necessarily imply that the taking back into employment or service must be on the same terms and conditions to which the employee was entitled previously. This case is also distinguishable, because the facts indicate that the retrenched workman was being taken back in the same category of job and, therefore, the real question which has arisen in the instant case was not under consideration in the Bombay High Court. Section 25 H must be considered along with Section 25 G which runs as follows:- Where any workman in an industrial establishment who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workmen in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for the reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman." That is to say, in a particular category of workman, the last person to be employed must go, as a rule, first, when retrenchment occurs. Section 25 H must have connotation that after retrenchment, an employer proposes to take into his employment again persons in the same category of work and this section indicates what the employer must do. Otherwise, in my opinion, the expression "reemployment" will lose all significance. I think, the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules support this conclusion. Rules 79 and 80 fun as follows :- "79. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen-The employer shall prepare a list of workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated, arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be posted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment." "80. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-(1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies to everyone of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter: Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in list referred to in Rule 79 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such vacancies : Provided further that whether the vacancy is of duration less than one month, there shall be no obligation on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen. (2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of Sub-rule (1) the employer shall also inform the registered trade unions, whether recognised or not, connected with the industrial establishment, and the Conciliation Officer of the area in which the establishment is located, of the number of vacancies to be filled and the names of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule," Under Rule 79 a list of workmen in a particular category has to be prepared from which retrenchment is contemplated. Thereafter, Rule 80 has to be applied for the purpose of re-employment of retrenched workmen. The conclusion must follow that the retrenched workmen have to be put in the same kind of work by re-employment, if Section 25H has to be resorted to. If the number of vacancies to be filled up by re-employment is less than the number of retrenched workmen, intimation has to be given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in the list referred to in Rule 79 and this leads to the conclusion that the persons to be re-employed have to fill up the vacancies in the category from which retrenchment had been made. The words “all he retrenched workmen eligible to be considered" mentioned in Rule 80(1), lead to the same conclusion. The words “all he retrenched workmen eligible to be considered" mentioned in Rule 80(1), lead to the same conclusion. Reference may be made to the case of (3) Filmistan (Private) Limited V. Its workmen, a decision of the Industrial Tribunal of Maharastra, reported in 1961-I Labour Law Journal 138, where the interpretation of Section 25H was under consideration. The facts of that case stated by the Industrial Tribunal were as follows: Sri H. D. Potdar had been employed on a salary of Rs. 115 plus dearness allowance of Rs. 35. His services were terminated and he was again employed as a moulder on a salary of Rs. 90 plus dearness allowance of Rs. 35. The company then affected retrenchment of its staff in the moulding department and Sri Potdar was retrenched. Then the company recruited workers again in the moulding department on the 18th April, 1959, but no intimation was sent to Sri Potdar about the intended recruitment. Having come to know of this recruitment, Sri Potdar approached his union with his grievance and union had correspondence with the management and ultimately, Sri Potdar was taken in as a moulder. The union had contended that as Sri Potdar had not been given an opportunity to be recruited in April, 1959, he suffered a loss in the wages for a period of two months and, therefore, the company should be directed to pay him that amount, The company's contention was that the company had required some skilled moulders temporarily and, therefore, some recruitment of skilled moulders had been made on the 18th April, 1959 and Sri Potdar was a 'B' class moulder and when there was work available for him, he was taken in June, 1959. The Industrial Tribunal referred to Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act along with Rule 82 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (which is in substance the same as Rules 79 and 80 of the Bihar Rules quoted above) and stated thus :- "These provisions show that no distinction is made between a permanent workman and a temporary workman who is a retrenched. In both cases if the employer wants to recruit workmen in the same department, a notice either in a local newspaper or individually to the workmen, as the case may be, be issued by the management. In both cases if the employer wants to recruit workmen in the same department, a notice either in a local newspaper or individually to the workmen, as the case may be, be issued by the management. The contention raised by the company regarding Sri Potdar being a 'B' class moulder was disbelieved, as it was held that there was no grade of moulders in the company. In my opinion, the interpretation of Section 25H made by the Industrial Tribunal in this case was the correct approach. This point seems to be now settled by the Supreme Court in the case of (4) the Cawnpore Tannery Ltd., Kanpur V. S. Guha and others, reported in A. I. R. 1967 Supreme Court 667. The relevant facts of Cawnpore Tannery Limited's case are as follows: "There was a dispute between the tannery and its employees in regard to the discharge of one of the employees named Sri S. Guha. He had been appointed as an assistant storekeeper in the boot factory stores on a salary of Rs. 140 per month. His services were terminated on the 1st May, 1951. This had given rise to a dispute between the tannery and its employees which was adjudicated upon by the tribunal. The tribunal held that Sri Guha's discharge was not wrongful. The workmen appealed against the decision, but the award given by the tribunal was upheld. Meanwhile, the tannery had employed two clerks, Sri Zaidi on the 16th August, 1951 and Sri Joseph in July, 1952. Subsequently, another clerk was also employed in April, 1953. On the 10th January, 1953 a complaint was filed to the effect that the retrenchment of Sri Guha was not bona fide and that persons junior to Sri Guha had been retained while he was discharged. Upon this a fresh industrial dispute arose which was referred to adjudication. The tribunal had held that the tannery had kept Sri Guha wrongfully and unjustifiably unemployed at least since the 16th August 1951, when it had employed Sri Zaidi as a Clerk, reemployment of Sri Guha was ordered. An appeal by the tannery failed and the case went up to the Supreme Court by special leave. The tribunal had held that the tannery had kept Sri Guha wrongfully and unjustifiably unemployed at least since the 16th August 1951, when it had employed Sri Zaidi as a Clerk, reemployment of Sri Guha was ordered. An appeal by the tannery failed and the case went up to the Supreme Court by special leave. One of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant tannery in that case was met by their Lordships of the Supreme Court thus: "It is then urged that the principle of industrial adjudication on which the respondents rely cannot require the appellant to offer to Mr. Guha a job unless the said job belongs to the same category to which Mr. Guha belonged. On principle, Mr. Sen may be right in assuming that the offer would be conditioned by the consideration of the category to which the retrenched employee belonged. But, in the present case on the findings of the Tribunal below, there is no room for contending that Mr. Gnha has been asked to be taken in a category other than the one to which he originally belonged. It is true that under his earlier assignment Mr. Guha was described as an Assistant Store Keeper, but it has been found by the Tribunals below that he was doing a substantial amount of clerical work and subsequent appointments made by the employer were made in the clerical cadre. Therefore, all that the Tribunals have required the appellant to do is to reemploy Mr. Guha in the clerical cadre. We do not think that his order can be challenged on the ground that it is not justified by the principle of industrial adjudication in regard to retrenched workmen." It is clear from the observations of their Lordships, quoted above, that reemployment within the meaning of Section 25 H of the Act imports the significance of taking back a retrenched workman in the same category to which he belonged. Strictly speaking, therefore, Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act had no application in the instant case and the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal has erred in law in holding that Babulal and Bhagelu were entitled to the same wages on re-employment as they were drawing before their retrenchment on the basis of Section 25 H. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has contended that according to the case of the employer, Bhageln and Babulal were being re-employed according to Section 25 H and, therefore, they were entitled to their previous benefits of their wages etc. I do not think that there is any validity in this contention. I have already referred to the contention of the employer made in its written statement, and the question is one of law, based on the facts of the case. The facts have been mentioned by the Tribunal and, apparently, it was not the case of these two retrenched workmen that either of them should have been re-employed as a tractor driver. The case of the workmen in their written statement was that they were working as unskilled workers and still they were entitled to the wages which they were drawing at the time of their retrenchment. In my opinion the Award based on Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is erroneous. The Award of the Tribunal with respect to the point decided against the petitioner must, therefore, be quashed and the matter remitted to it for reconsideration of the first point mentioned in the notification, dated the 24th August, 1966, without reference to Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The writ application is, therefore, allowed, but under the circumstances, without costs. B. N. JHA, J. I agree. Application allowed.