JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) J. N. Sarma, J.- This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 176 of 1994 (1996 (2) GLJ 443). 2. The petitioner/appellant at the relevant time was a Head Lineman in the Electricity Department under the Government of Manipur and he was asked to go on retirement with effect from 28.2.94 on attaining the age of 58 years. 3. The admitted position is that the service of the petitioner was that of Grade III. The contention before the learned Single Judge was that he was entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in view of the Fundamental Rule 56 (b) and he must be deemed to be a workman within the definition of FR 56 (a) and (b) alongwith note appended thereto. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner was not a workman and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of FR 56 (b). Regarding other question whether the electricity department is an industry or not, that aspect of the matter was not decided by the learned Single Judge as it did not call for any decision in the facts and circumstances of this particular case. Hence this writ appeal. 4. We have heard Sri L. Nandakumar, learned Advocate for the appellant/ petitioner and Sri L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Sri Nandakumar urges that the petitioner/appellant is a workman as defined in FR 56 (b) as quoted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and for the decision of this appeal it is not necessary to quote that rule again as that has been extensively quoted in the judgment of learned Single Judge. Sri Nandakumar, learned Advocate for the appellant relies on two decisions of the Apex Court. (i) 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 32 (Prithipal Singh vs. Union of India). That was a case of a driver and he was working as Staff Car Driver in the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India and that was challenged. There the Supreme Court pointed out that in order to determine workman under the above Rule i.e. FR 56 (b) the appellant must satisfy two things/conditions - that he has to be an 'artisan' and also be employed in an 'industrial' or 'work charged establishment'. There the Supreme Court pointed out that in order to determine workman under the above Rule i.e. FR 56 (b) the appellant must satisfy two things/conditions - that he has to be an 'artisan' and also be employed in an 'industrial' or 'work charged establishment'. The Supreme Court further found that the driver of staff car is undoubtedly as skilled or semi skilled person. The Supreme Court did not find that the Ministry of Surface Transport is an industry, and accordingly, the Supreme Court without deciding anything remitted back the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the question afresh to find out whether the Ministry of Surface Transport is an industry or not. This case does not help the petitioner/appellant. (ii) Next case relied by Sri Nandakumar, learned Advocate for the appellant/ petitioner is 1992 Suppl (3) SCC 43 (Chandigarh Administration, through the Chief Engineer & others vs. Mehar Singh & another). That was an appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 8 holding that the employee was a workman within the meaning FR 56 (b). There also the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter was remitted back to the Administrative Tribunal to find out the status of the employee. So, this case does not help the petitioner/appellant. 5. On the other hand Sri L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Advocate for the respondents placed-reI iance on the following two decisions of the Apex Court. 6.1995 Suppl (1) SCC 470 (State of Orissa & others vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty & others). In particular case two cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant were considered. There the Supreme Court considered the Orissa Service Code and Rule 71 (a) of that particular Code is in perimateria with the Fundamental Rule 56 (b). The Supreme Court after considering the earlier cases, in paragraph 12 and 13 laid down the law as follows : "12. If the interpretation sought to be put up by the counsel for the respondents are given acceptance, it would render the very object of the rules ridiculous and all classes of Government servants would be brought into the vertex of artisan. Class II consists of gazetted as well as non gazetted employees. The Government servants in Class III shall retire on completion of 58 years. Class II consists of gazetted as well as non gazetted employees. The Government servants in Class III shall retire on completion of 58 years. If the interpretation that every artisan is a workman if he produces an article with dexterity or service with dexterity by manual or technical labour, he would be entitled to remain in service till the completion of 60 years. For example, even a Director of Town Planning or Chief Architect could be considered to be an artisan and, therefore, they too would be workman entitled to superannuation upto the completion of 60 years of age. Similarly several officers in specified governmental activities would answer the definition of workman, in particular, the note to the proviso. It does not appear to be the object. As stated earlier, the object appears to be to bring artisan workman governed by the statutory rules but on a par with Class IV employee and he alone is required to retire on completion of 60 years of age but not the gazetted or non gazetted Class II Government servants or even in Class II or I. 13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Government employee in Class II service shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. Even an artisan workman who was promoted or appointed to Class III service be it gazetted or non gazetted shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. An artisan workman who is working in an industrial or work charged establishment but he is on a par with Class IV employee is to retire on attaining the age of 60 years under the second proviso to Rule 71 (a) of the Code." 7. Similar law has been rejected by the Apex Court in another decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 1271 (Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam & others vs. Theyyam Joseph, etc). That was a case against the Central Administrative Tribunal and there in paragraph 11, the Supreme Court pointed out as follows: "It would thus be seen that the method of recruitment, the conditions of service, the scale of pay and the conduct rules regulating the service conditions of ED Agents are governed by the statutory regulation. It is now settled law of this Court that these employees are civil servants regulated by these conducts rules. It is now settled law of this Court that these employees are civil servants regulated by these conducts rules. Therefore, by necessary implication, they do not belong to the category of workman attracting the provisions of the Act. The approach adopted by the Tribunal, therefore, is clearly illegal." 8. This being the position of law, there is no force in this writ appeal and the same is dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.