- (1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the award dated 29th March, 2004, whereby Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad has answered the Reference Case No. 20 of 1997 against the workmen holding that the demand of Union for regularization of Sri Ramesh Naik and 59 others, is not justified and they are not entitled to get any relief. The award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the workmen continuously worked for nine years under the management and are entitled to be regularized, but the management arbitrarily refused the existence of the concerned workmen. The dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal who erroneously answered the award against the Petitioner.
(2.) According to the management, the Company is a public sector undertaking. It has to follow the norms and procedure laid down by rules and law. For the purpose of recruitment, applications are invited from the eligible candidates through Employment Exchange and selection is made through the Selection Committee. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the workmen are recruited on the roll of the company. The appointment letters are issued and identity cards are given to such employees, pay slips are also given to them for drawing wages from the company. There is no other mode of recruitment of workmen in the company. The concerned workmen were never appointed by the management and as such there is no question of their regularization. It has been further stated that the Rajrappa Washery, where the concerned workmen claimed to have worked, is situated within the boundary walls with the security personnel at the gate. In course of maintenance of washery, slurries are removed by mechanical means and water flow is recirculated by special pumps filled in the circuit for the purpose of preventing water flow outside the premises. There is no scope for employing manual labour for removal of slurry from the slurry ponds. However, sometimes in case of break down in the system or mechanical failure the pond inside the washery became full causing over flow of water outside the factory and some slurry settled down outside the factory premises along the drain. For the purpose of removal of that slurry and to make the drain clean, one Contractor was engaged through tender for cleaning of temporary drain and the natural pond created clue to over flow of water. That is one time job and for that purpose the labourers of the Contractor who was given the work, put their claim for regularization under the management for having worked as Contractor's workers for removal and cleaning of slurry outside the factory premises. That dispute was referred in the different reference cases The concerned persons, who have raised the dispute, never worked even as Contractor's labourers. Their claim is imaginary and is liable to be rejected.
(3.) Both the parties led their evidences and were thoroughly heard. Learned Tribunal considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and came to the conclusion that the concerned workmen failed to substantiate their claim that they were engaged by the management in Rajrappa Washery for removing slurry from the period 1991 to March 1999. Learned Tribunal answered the reference in negative and held that the workmen are not entitled to get any relief.;