- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the workmen being aggrieved by the judgment and order Dt. 20.4.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1998(R) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the management and set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the Management was directed to reinstate and regularize the concerned workmen. The brief facts of the case are as under: 1. "That, the appellant - workmen were employed by the management for various permanent and perennial nature of jobs since 1986, such as, black -smithy, welding, fabrication, erection and tyndal jobs. Dispute arose between the employer and workmen regarding regularization of workmen which gave the cause of action for raising industrial reference. The Central Govt. under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal: "Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh that the management of Moonidih Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad should departmentalise and treat as regular workmen on the rolls of the colliery, 18 Tyndal Mazdoors etc. whose names appear in the Annexure, is justified If not, to what reliefs are these Tyndal Mazdoor etc entitled - On appreciation of various documentary as well as considering oral evidences, the Tribunal gave an award dated 17.8.1997, in Reference Case No. 45 of 1993, holding that the demand of the workmen is justified and directed the management to reinstate and regularize the concerned workmen as permanent tyndals of the management w.e.f. 1.7.90 with 30% back wages. That, the management being aggrieved by the award had filed the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 1998(R). It was admitted on 17th March, 1999 and the operation of the award was stayed. Though, there was an order for payment of benefits under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but, the management has not paid those benefits, except one workman. That, ultimately, the writ application was heard and it was finally allowed by an order dated 20.4.2006, whereby the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was set aside and the demand of the Union is held unjustified.
(2.) The case of the Union, in short, is that the workmen were employed by the management in various permanent and perennial nature of jobs since 1986. They claimed regularization, but the management stopped them from work after the dispute was raised by the Union. The engagement of the contractor M/s. New Jhang Transport was a camouflage. Under the N.C.W.A. -III and IV, it was agreed that the industry shall not engage contract labour on jobs of permanent and perennial nature and such jobs will continue to be done by the regular labour. In support of its claim, the Union examined the contractor Mewa Singh as WW -1, who inter alia deposed that he established the firm M/s. New Jhang Transport as the management had asked him that it will facilitate easy payment. The case of the management inter alia was that no notification was issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, prohibiting the engagement of the contractors for the work in question done by the said contractor. The jobs were of short duration of about 8 to 10 days in a month. In support of its case, MW -1 was examined on behalf of the management, who stated, inter alia, that the workers were employed by the contractors. The work of one Cycle Stand, 2 -3 Cow Catchers and dismantling of one building was only done within three years. The workmen did not work regularly.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava appearing on behalf of the appellant -Union of workmen, has submitted that the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Union by referring the judgment rendered in the case of Madusantakam Co -operative Sugar Mills Vrs. S. Vishwanathan, reported in : (2005) 3 SCC p. 193. It is submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in the above judgment that the Court in its writ jurisdiction, is not required to interfere with the findings of the facts recorded by Tribunal as the same was neither perverse nor illegal.;