JUDGMENT The Chandigarh Administration seeks to appeal to this Court from the order dated March 20, 1989 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, in O.A.No.280-CH of 1988 holding that respondent 1 was a 'Workman' for purposes of F.R.56(b) and was entitled to ramain in service till the attainment of the age of 60 years; that the order of the Chandigarh Administration requiring his retirement with effect from April 30, 1980 upon attaining the age of 58 years is erroneous and that respondent 1 be called back to duty to serve till April 30, 1990 when he would attain 60 years. . We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted. It is stated that the principles guiding the applicability of clause (b) of F.R.56 to work-charged employees has since been laid down by this Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Mehar Singh, 1992 Supp(3)SCC 43, where a similar question arose out of a similar order made by the Tribunal. The Division Bench noticed the proposition that fell for consideration thus: "The question, therefore, is whether the Administration was right in superannuating the employee on completion of the age of 58. According to the employee, the right age for retirement being 60 years, as provided under clause(b) of F.R.56, he should have been retained in service, as found by the Tribunal, till April 30, 1990." On the scope of clause(b) of F.R.56 as applicable to such cases it was held: "The question whether an employee is a 'workman 'within the meaning of clause (b) of F.R.56 has to be considered with reference to the nature of his work. Clause(b) has to be construed with reference to the statutory note appended thereto. The Note says that a workman who is an artisan empldyed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work-charged establishment qualifies for the purpose of clause(b). It does not matter whether the workman is a skilled or a semi-skilled or unskilled artisan. All artisans, who are workmen, whether skilled or otherwise qualify for the benefit of clause(b), provided they are employed on a monthly rate of pay in .an industrial or work- charged establishment. The expression 'artisan' has, therefore, to be understood as widely as possible and without regard to his skill. Never-thless, he must be both a workman and an artisan of some kind. The expression 'artisan' has, therefore, to be understood as widely as possible and without regard to his skill. Never-thless, he must be both a workman and an artisan of some kind. Whether the employee in question is both a workman and a artisan within the meaning of clause(b) read with the Note is a question essentially of evidence as regards the nature of his work. The Tribunal has not embarked on such a analysis." As to the error in the Tribunal's approach it was observed: "The Tribunal does not seem to have considered the status of the employee with reference to the nature of the work-performed by him. The Tribunal assumed that all employees working in an industrial or work-charged establishment qualified as workmen within the meaning of clause(b) of F.R.56, so as to get the benefit or retirement on completion of 60 years unlike other Government employees whose age of retirement is 58 years." For the reasons stated in and following the said earlier order in Civil Appeal No.3671 of 1991 we allow this appeal, set aside the order under appeal and remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in the said Civil Appeal No.3671 of 1991.