Judgment :- P.D. DINAKARAN, C.J. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Labour Court is right in setting aside the order of retrenchment dated 10.2001, in spite of rendering a clear finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned retrenchment, merely on account of the right conferred on the respondent-workman under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2.1) After going through the detailed award dated 12th October, 2004 of the Labour Court, we find that the Labour Court was carried away by the letter issued by the management on 8.2002 offering employment to the respondent-workman when a vacancy arises subsequent to the retrenchment. The said award was challenged by the management in writ petition No.49182 of 2004. 2.2) the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. However direction with regard to payment of 20% back wages of the Labour Court was set aside. Hence, the present appeal by the management. 2.3) Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant management and respondent-workman reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned single judge as well as the Labour Court. 2.4) Admittedly, both sides do not seriously object to the finding rendered by the Labour Court that there is not illegality or irregularity in the order of retrenchment dated 10.2001. 2.5) In that view of matter, the only issue that arises for our consideration is that whether the Labour court is right in setting aside the order of retrenchment dated 10.2001, in spite of rendering a clear finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned retrenchment, merely on account or the right conferred on the respondent-workman under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947? 2.6) In this regard we are obliged to refer to Section 25H of the Act which reads as follows: “25H-Re-employment of retrenched workmen:- 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: 3.1) It is a settled law that section 25H only gives a preference to a retrenched workman and such preference will be available only prospectively as and when future vacancy arises. It is the right conferred on the retrenched workman under Section 25H to ensure the employee, whose employment was retrenched on the ground that his employment became surplus and whenever the employer has an occasion to employ another hand, the retrenched workman should be given a preference to join in service. 3.2) In Cawnmpore Tannery LTD. vs. Guha S- 1961(2) LLJ 110 , the Supreme Court held that: “…. Even before Section 25H was added to the Act, industrial adjudication generally recognized the principle that if an employer retrenched the services of an employee on the ground that the employee in question had become surplus, it was necessary that whenever the employer had occasion to employ another hand, the retrenched workman should be given an opportunity to join service. This principle was regarded as of general application in industrial adjudication on the ground that it was based on considerations of fair play and justice.” 3.3) Further, the Supreme Court referring to the decision in Annapurna Mills vs. Workman (1953 I LLJ 43) observed: “It is true that in the case of Annapurna Mills the discharge of the workmen was the result of the fact that the employer had closed his business and it was held that with improvement in circumstances if the employer reopened his business it was necessary that he should take back in his employment his old employees. It would be noticed that the principle which was applied to the case of an employer who reopened his business which had been closed by him is substantially the same principle which requires the employer to give an opportunity to his retrenched workman when he has occasion to engage another servant. It would be noticed that the principle which was applied to the case of an employer who reopened his business which had been closed by him is substantially the same principle which requires the employer to give an opportunity to his retrenched workman when he has occasion to engage another servant. That is why the Labour appellate Tribunal has observed that the principle now statutorily recognised by Section 25H was, before the Act was amended recognized by industrial adjudicators in dealing with such questions”. 3.4) The right conferred under Section 25H of the Act, therefore, cannot by itself be a ground to interfere with the order of retrenchment validity made, particularly after holding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the retrenchment order dated 10.2001. Hence we are obliged to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge dated 210.2007 and also the award dated 110.2004 and quash the same. 3.5) However, we make it clear that the quashing of the award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned single Judge would not by itself take away the right of the respondent under Section 25H of the Act for appointment to any future vacancy. 4. Writ Appeal is allowed with the above observation.