SINGHVI, J.—Respondent No. 2 Satya Van Singh, who claim that he was employed as a daily wager in the Garrison Engineer MES, Cantt. Lalgarh, Distt. Sriganganagar raised a dispute regarding the termination of his service with effect from 3.7.87. That dispute was referred by the Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur for adjudication. On the basis of the case set-up by the workman and Garrison Engineer, the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal has vide his impugned award dated 20.4.91 declared the termination of the service of the workman as unlawful and has directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and a cost of Rs. 100. A further direction has been given that in case the employer fails to make payment of the amount, interest at the rale of 12% per annum shall be payable. 2. In his statement of claim filed before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 2 claimed that he was employed under the petitioner on 7.11.84 and he regularly worked upto 3.7.87. His service was terminated on 3.7.87. Termination of his service amounts to retrenchment and since he had worked for over 240 days continuously, it was obligatory for the employer to comply with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That had not been done. A number of junior persons were still in service and new recruitment had been made against the post held by the petitioner. No seniority list had been prepared before effecting retrenchment. There has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been held that the workman was engaged on 18.10.85 and he worked for different periods between 18.10.85 to 3.7.87. The total period of his working comes to less than 240 days in one calender year. He worked for 69 days between 18.10.85 to 4.10.86 and for 21 days between 28.1.87 to 3.7.87. The petitioner also stated that the workmen was not engaged on a permanent post. He was engaged for a specified work and was paid on the basis of muster roll. No person junior to him had been continued in service and fresh appointment against the post of the workman had not been made. The workman filed his own affidavit. He was subjected to cross-examination. Affidavit of one Capt. G.V.R. Murty was filed on behalf of the petitioner. He too was subjected to cross-examination. No person junior to him had been continued in service and fresh appointment against the post of the workman had not been made. The workman filed his own affidavit. He was subjected to cross-examination. Affidavit of one Capt. G.V.R. Murty was filed on behalf of the petitioner. He too was subjected to cross-examination. 3. After hearing the parties the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned award. Shri Praveen Balwada, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award by asserting that the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has completely mis-read and mis-construed the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and he has recorded a finding of violation of Section 25-H of the 1947 Act without looking the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence which has come on record. Shri Balwada has stated that the finding of the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal are criptic to the core. There is no material available on record for holding that there has been a violation of section 25H. Shri B.L. Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, has on the other hand argued that Shri Murty has himself admitted employment of other persons after termination of service of the workman. Therefore, there is a clear evidence available on record which justifies the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal. 4. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and also the record of the Industrial Tribunal which was summoned by this Court vide order dated 12.8.91. 5. In his impugned award the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has made reference to the pleadings of the parties and has recorded one line conclusion that the workman has failed to prove violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act. However, after making reference to Wl (circular) he has held that Section 25-H of the 1947 Act has been violated. 5. In his impugned award the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has made reference to the pleadings of the parties and has recorded one line conclusion that the workman has failed to prove violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act. However, after making reference to Wl (circular) he has held that Section 25-H of the 1947 Act has been violated. The total consideration made by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal in this regard can appropriately be reproduced :— ^^Jfed dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd lsokeqfDr ds mijkUr ls u;h HkrhZ dh x;h gS ftl ckcr MCY;w-A vknsk isk fd;k x;k gSA fu;kstd lk{kh izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd mls MCY;w-A ljdwyj dh tkudkjh ugha gSA rRipkr~ fu;kstd lk{kh dgrk gS fd MCY;w-A gesa feyk FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfHkys[k ij ;g lkfcr gS fd lsokeqfDr ds mijkUr mlh in ij u;h HkrhZ dh x;h gS ftl in ls Jfed dks lsokeqDr fd;k Fkk vkSj bl Jfed dks u;h HkrhZ dh lwpuk rd ugha nh x;hA vr% /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dh vogsyuk gqbZ gSA A bare look at the portion shows that the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has neither referred to the plea raised by the workman about violation of Section 25-F nor has referred to appointment of any person in the category to which the workman belonged. He has straight away recorded a conclusion in one line that there has been a violation of Section 25-H because recruitment has been made after termination of service of the workman and the workman was not even informed. In his affidavit the workman has staled that against his post, new appointment has been made and workmen, namely, Iqbal Singh, Jai Chand, Bajranglal, Shyam Behari Nagar, Balwant etc. who were junior to him, are working after the termination of his service and they had been made permanent. Shri G.V.R. Murty has stated that the workman was engaged as a casual mazdoor for short periods and he has not served for 240 days continuously. In his cross-examination he has stated that regular selection for Messon has been made through the employment office and no person, engaged in the muster roll, has been regularised. The workman has not given the name of even a single person who has been employed after termination of his service. In his cross-examination he has stated that regular selection for Messon has been made through the employment office and no person, engaged in the muster roll, has been regularised. The workman has not given the name of even a single person who has been employed after termination of his service. He has not given the details of the service of so called junior persons, who were continued in service after termination of his service. Exhibit W. 1 is a circular issued by the Army Headquarters on 7.9.87 and it lays down the procedure for regular appointment of labourer. This is a circular which relates to regularisation of services of muster roll employees of Delhi Cantt. Para 3 of this circular shows that for the purpose of regularisation only those persons could be considered who had completed 180 days in each year with effect from 1.4.85. They were to be subjected to trade test and could be given appointment if they possess the requisite certificate of III/NCTVT etc. That circular does not in any manner show that any person has been recruited after 3.7.87, and even if for a moment it is assumed that anyone has been recruited such recruitment has been made after following the procedure prescribed in that circular. It cannot also be ignored that the said circular related to Delhi Cantt. and there is no evidence on record to show that the said circular was applied for Lalgarh Cantt. Completely ignoring these all material facts and without there being any material on record, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding of violation of Section 25H of the 1947 Act. The findings of the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal are such which no reasonable man could possibly had recorded in the circumstances of the case. The learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal did not apply his mind to the provisions of Section 25H of the 1947 Act in a correct perspective and has recorded a finding without there being any evidence on record. In these circumstances it has to be held that the award passed by the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the fact of the record. 6. In these circumstances it has to be held that the award passed by the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the fact of the record. 6. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Central Industrial Tribunal (1), and argued that in every case of re-employment an employee has a right of preferential consideration. I have gone through the decision of the Oriental Bank of Commerces case and in my opinion there is no merit in the submission of Shri Gupta. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce a finding had been recorded by the Tribunal that at the time of termination of service of the workman, junior persons had been retained and two persons had been engaged afterwards. A finding of fact was recorded by the Central Industrial Tribunal that two persons were engaged by the Bank in the same capacity in which the workman was in employment before termination of his service. That finding was up-held by me while dismissing the writ petition of the Bank. That case cannot however be taken as laying down a proposition of law that after termination of service of a workman (who is engaged as a casual worker), the employer must give preference to him in regular appointment. In my opinion for the purposes of regular appointment, no preferential claim can be made by a person who was a casual labourer at the time of termination of his service. Such person has to compete for regular selection with others. 7. No other point has been argued. 8. This writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The award dated 20.4.91 passed by the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal is declared as illegal and it is hereby quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.