JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - These two petitions have been filed by various persons, who were employed as casual labourers in the Engineering Department (Bridges) Broad Gauge (Constructions) North-Eastern Railway. Their services have been terminated by various similar orders offering them one month's salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation. The petitioners have challenged the orders on various grounds including the ground that the juniors to them have been retained and their services have been terminated without preparing a proper seniority list. They also claim to have acquired the status of temporary servants and therefore entitled to notice under R. 146 of the Rules contained in the Indian Railways Establishment Code Volume 1. The case of the other side is that the petitioners had acquired no title as they were employed on different projects and were not seniors in accordance with the seniority lists prepared for them as required by R. 77, Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which runs as under: - "The employer shall prepare a list of all 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 pasted 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. 2. The first question which arises in the case is whether there was a valid seniority list and the services of the petitioners had been terminated on the basis of that seniority list. In the petition it has been alleged that the petitioners were employed on projects. It is asserted that they were employed in the Engineering Department. This allegation is admitted in the counter-affidavit although it is asserted that they were employed on projects. It is, however, not stated in the counter-affidavit that the various projects on which the petitioners were employed did not fall under the jurisdiction of one Divisional Personnel Officer or one District Officer-in-charge. 3. Under the Industrial Disputes Act the term 'employer' has been defined in clause (g) of Section 2. It is, however, not stated in the counter-affidavit that the various projects on which the petitioners were employed did not fall under the jurisdiction of one Divisional Personnel Officer or one District Officer-in-charge. 3. Under the Industrial Disputes Act the term 'employer' has been defined in clause (g) of Section 2. In the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, with reference to the definition of the term 'employer' in clause (g) of Section 2 the following prescription has been made: "(g) with reference to clause (g) of Section 2, it is hereby prescribed that - ----------------------------------- (ii) in relation to an industry concerning railways carried on by or under the authority of a Department of the Central Government,- ----------------------------------- (c) the District Officer-in-charge or the Divisional Personnel Officer or the Personnel Officer shall be the employer in respect of casual labour employed on a Zonal Railway or any other railway establishment independent of a Zonal railway.'' In the supplementary affidavit filed in the case it was asserted that the seniority list had not been prepared by the person authorised to do so under clause (c) mentioned above. In the supplementary counter-affidavit it is asserted that because of some circular letter dated 22-1-1974 issued by the Railway Board the seniority list had been prepared on the basis of the Bridge Inspector/Construction/Gonda. It has not been alleged in the counter affidavit that the inspector was either the District Officer-in-charge or the Divisional Personnel Officer or the Personnel Officer. The Bridge Inspector/Construction/Gonda could not, therefore, be deemed to be the employer for purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act or the Rules. A similar question was raised in Ram Sewak Sah v. Union of India (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 347 and 1499 of 1977) in the Patna High Court. It was held that the list having been prepared by the Inspector of the area concerned and not by the District Officer-in-Charge as required under R. 77 of the Rules was not the one required by law. The list was accordingly quashed. The decisions of the Patna High Court in the above case applies with full force to the present case. On the material before us. We are also unable to hold that the seniority list relied upon by the respondents on the basis of which termination orders had been passed, was drawn up in accordance with law. The decisions of the Patna High Court in the above case applies with full force to the present case. On the material before us. We are also unable to hold that the seniority list relied upon by the respondents on the basis of which termination orders had been passed, was drawn up in accordance with law. The list and the orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. It cannot be open to the Inspector of a Work or the Divisional Personnel Officer or the District Officer-in-charge to make separate seniority lists on the basis of the labourers' place of work as it will defeat the very purpose of preparing the seniority list. The unit of workers for employment and retrenchment is the unit consisting of all the casual labourers under one employment. Clause (c) makes the District Officer-in-charge or the Divisional Personnel Officer the employer in respect of all the casual labourers working in the district or the division. 5. Rule 77 contemplates a common list of all the workmen in a particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated. It may be possible to categorise the casual labourers on the basis of the nature of work, but there cannot be a categorisation of casual labourers on the basis of the place or project where they may be posted to work. The employer may put the workman at any particular place of his industrial establishment but that will not provide a basis for the categorisation of the workmen for purposes of the inter se seniority of the workers. Rule 76 deals with the notice of retrenchment and refers to R. 77. Rules 76 and 77 when they are read with Section 25-G, Industrial Disputes Act, make it clear that there has to be one list for one category of workmen. 6. The respondents have urged that as the petitioners were transferred from project to project they could not be deemed to belong to a single cadre consisting of all the casual labourers. In view of the definition of the term 'employer' however, all the casual labourers working under one District Officer-in-charge or one Divisional Personnel Officer must be deemed to form one cadre because R. 77 does not contemplate different seniority lists of casual labourers employed o under one employer. The purpose of the rule is to provide a running seniority list so that retrenchment may not be made arbitrarily. The purpose of the rule is to provide a running seniority list so that retrenchment may not be made arbitrarily. The employer can by sticking to the seniority list follow the principle of first come last go whenever the question of retrenchment of labourers may arise in his district or division. Unless therefore the seniority list is prepared on the basis of the entire area falling within the jurisdiction of the employer contemplated by clause (c) it is not possible to hold that the retrenchment of the petitioners was on the basis of their (sic) is no assertions in the counter-affidavit that if the consolidated list is prepared as required by law the petitioners will be junior to those retained in employment and not retrenched, even though it was positively asserted in the petition that they were not junior most and that persons junior to the petitioners were being retained. We have, therefore, no option but to hold that the petitioners have not been proved to be junior to those who have been retained and if the assertion that the petitioners were senior is correct then there has been violation of that cardinal principle of the Industrial law contained in Section 25-G, Industrial Disputes Act. The retrenchment of the petitioners on the basis of the alleged seniority lists prepared according to the postings of the casual labourers under a particular Inspector cannot be deemed to be in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the termination orders are liable to be quashed because they have been passed without the preparation of a seniority list in accordance with R. 77, it is not necessary to decide other points raised in the petition. 7. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the impugned termination orders are quashed. Costs on parties.