AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE relevant facts, in short, for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: '' By a reference dated 17.9.1990, the Central Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal: '' "Whether the demand of the workmen of Kendwadih Colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office - Kusunda, District -Dhanbad for regularization of blacksmith mentioned in the Annexure as departmental workers is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled? 1. Chandan Manjhi, 2. Dukhan Mistry, 3. Saudagar Mistry, 4. Sarju Mistry, 5. Rah Kishore Paswan, 6. Cyan Chand Paswan, 7. Mala Paswan, 8. Ram Chandra Garhari, 9. Deo Narain Mistry, 10. Ashok Paswan, 11. Bigan Mistry, 12. Surjdeo Paswan, 13. Chandrika Mistry, 14. Jagaranath Mistry, 15. Rajendra Mistry, 16. Munilal Mistry, 17. Rajeshwari Mistry, 18. Ishwar Chandra Mistry, 19. Jago Mistry, 20. Laxman Mistry." Subsequently, vide order dated 9.11.1990 one another notification was issued describing it to be an amendment/ corrigendum of the first reference. By the second reference the following dispute was referred for adjudication: '' "Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in not giving employment to Contractors workers Shri Siya Ram Biswakarma and seven others shown in Annexure is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled? 1. Siya Ram Vishwakarma, 2. Janeshwar Vishwakarma, 3. Paras Nath Prasad, 4. Ramdeo Rewani, 5. Prem Bhuiya, 6. Sarjan Bhuiya, 7. Kamta Singh, 8. Indrajit Paswan, 9. Dhaneshwar Prasad."
(2.) THE Industrial Tribunal by an award dated 28.8.1997 held that the action of the management Bhaga Bandh Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited in not giving employment to Contractors workers Shri Siya Ram Bishwakarma and others as per the corrigendum was not justified and, thereafter, directed the management to employ/regularize the concerned workmen as blacksmiths at the entry level category and also pay them at least 30% of full back wages from that very date within two months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette. The Industrial Tribunal held that the concerned workmen worked on permanent and perennial nature of job for continuous period from 1981 to 1985 and, therefore, the stoppage of work by the management on making claim by the workmen for their regularization without notice or without compensation was violative to the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, it was void ab initio. The Management of B.C.C.L challenged the aforesaid award of the Industrial Tribunal by filing a writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 12.4.2006 holding: Firstly, that the original reference dated 17.9.1990 and the subsequent corrigenda dated 9.11.1990 were completely different from each other. Earlier reference related to the demand of workmen of "Kendwadih Colliery" for regularization of blacksmith, whereas the second reference was as to whether the action of the management of "Bhaga Bandh Colliery" in not giving employment to contractor's workers was justified or not and, therefore, cancellation/supersession of the first reference by second reference was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Bihar V/s. D.N. Ganguli, reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 1018". Secondly, that the Tribunal after noticing the submissions of the parties, jumped to the conclusions that the workmen have worked on permanent and perennial nature of job continuously from 1981 to 1985 and the action of the Management in stopping the work was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned Single Sessions Judge, such finding of the tribunal was without any basis and without any evidence on record. Thirdly, that from the evidence of the Union itself, it was clear that the workmen were working under a Contractor and in the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act it could not have been held by the Tribunal that the employer was not justified in getting the works in question done through a Contractor or it was a camouflage. There was no finding by the tribunal attracting violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge also held that the decision in the case of "Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery V/s. Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited, reported in 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 80" relied on by the writ petitioner was of no help to the petitioner in view of the fact that in that case the dispute was regarding discrimination in employment/ regularization of the casual workers whereas in the present case that was not the situation and, accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal by allowing the writ application.
(3.) THE Union has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge by which he set aside the said award of the Tribunal.;