R. Bhanumathi C.J. and P.P. Bhatt, J. - (1.) In this Appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order/ judgment dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 180 of 1998 (R) whereby the award passed on 7.8.1997 by the Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 183 of 1989 has been set aside.
(2.) The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : * That, the workmen were engaged for supplying drinking water in the residence of the employees and office of the management on piece rate basis, due to water scarcity in absence of adequate water supply system. * that, the concerned workmen used to bring water from the taps and wells and other reservoirs on Bhar of two tins at a time with the help of bamboo and they were employed by the management to supply water to the workers and staff and also to the officers' quarters, offices, mines and at other places of mining operations. * that, in the Kuju area of the management particularly in Arra and Sarubera Collieries, there was no adequate water supply system and supply of water to the workers/ staff, office and mines and carrying mining operations were maintained by engaging mazdoors commonly known as Water Carriers. * that, the workmen have worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a period of more than 8 years as water carriers by the management by water container supplied to them by the management to fetch water from wells and taps and to supply the same in the quarters of the staff and officers and also in the offices of the Mines. Their work was also supervised by the staff of the management and record was maintained and number of Bhars of water supplied to each and every quarter was recorded and payment was made on monthly basis to the individual workmen for the total number of Bhar of water supplied by them after due verification and checking by the management and this payment of wages was made to the workmen without involving any third party. As such, it is said that the concerned workmen were employed by the management and engaged as water carriers that was in the clear knowledge of the management and the rate of payment made to the workmen were 0.37 P. Per Bhar was very low compared to the wages paid to the permanent workmen as under Category-I. * The workmen requested the management to regularise their services as they were continuously rendering services for considerable long period. But the management did not pay any attention to their demand. Therefore, the dispute arose between the management and the workmen for the regularisation of 125 workmen. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the following issues : "Whether the action of the management of Kuju Area of C.C.L., P.O. Kuju, District - Hazaribagh by not making payment of wages and other benefits (including regularisation) as per NCWA-III to S/Shri Raghunandan Mahto and 124 other workmen as mentioned in annexure is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad appearing on behalf of the appellant -Union of workmen, referring to the award passed by the learned Tribunal, has submitted as under : * that the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Union after appraisal of the evidence laid by union and management. * that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced before the learned Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the said order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside as findings of facts recorded by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of cogent evidence were not properly considered and appreciated. * that the findings of facts cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless there are apparent error or perversity or illegality in the award. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these proposition of law. * that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the findings of the Tribunal with respect of the nature of work and the motive of the management for engaging the workmen. * that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the findings of fact recorded by the industrial court which are based on evidence on record and not appreciated the award while rejecting the same without any reasonable explanation. * that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the petition and setting aside the award on the consideration of the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in, (2001) 7 SCC 1 .;