NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 14.8.06 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby the learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the respondent -Union directing regularization of the concerned workmen. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tried to assail the said award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the concerned workmen were engaged by a contractor and their engagement was not regular and only miscellaneous works were required to be done by them. Learned Counsel submitted that the workmen also failed to establish their case that they have been continuously working against the sanctioned posts. In absence thereof, the learned Tribunal should not have recorded its finding holding that the concerned workmen are continuously working and that they are entitled for regularization. Learned Counsel submitted that before coming to such finding, the learned Tribunal must have investigated as to whether the engagement of the concerned workmen as contract labours was mere camouflage. Without going into the said question and without recording any finding that the engagement of the concerned workmen as contract labours was mere camouflage, the Presiding Officer should not have come to the said finding and as such the impugned award is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his said submissions, learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.P. SRTC and Ors. V/s. G. Srinivas Recldy and Ors. , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Gangadhan Pillal V/s. Siemens Ltd.
(2.) MRS . M. M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -workmen submitted that there is no infirmity and illegality In the impugned award and there is clear finding of facts based on thorough appraisal of evidences on record and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot go into such questions and disturb the finding of facts of the learned Tribunal. It has been submitted that there is a clear finding that the work which was being done by the concerned workmen was of prohibitory category. The finding that there is relationship of employer and employee is based on the evidences on record. Their engagement and the duty discharged by them have not been denied by the Management. In view of the nature of work and relationship, the learned Tribunal was not required to go into the question as to whether the contract labour system was mere camouflage. The decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the learned Tribunal has thoroughly gone into the questions raised before it and on the basis of the facts and evidences on record, has come to the finding that the concerned workmen were engaged for plant cleaning job which is a job of permanent and perennial nature and according to the notification issued under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, such type of job comes within the prohibitory category and engagement of contract labour is prohibited in such job. It has been further found that the Management's plea that for cleaning of plant, they have got permanent labourers, could not be substantiated by any evidence. Learned Tribunal has come to the finding that the concerned workmen were continuously doing the plant cleaning job since long. The said job falls within the prohibited category. He has answered the award in favour of the concerned workmen directing their regularization and for payment of wages as prescribed under the National Coal Wages Agreement. The finding of facts recorded by the learned Presiding Officer is based on scrutiny and consideration of the facts and evidences on record. The decisions referred to above and relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner have got no relevance to the facts of the instant case and are of no help to the petitioner. I find no Infirmity or illegality in the impugned award warranting any interference of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;