JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. floated a tender for the transportation of crushed coal and selected a successful contractor for performance of the agreement for the period 1984 to 1994. The contractor employed workmen for execution of this contract.

3. The respondent-union espoused the cause of the workmen who were engaged by the contractor and sought permanent status for them. It relied on clauses 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV dated 27.07.1989. Under these clauses, it was agreed that the employer shall not engage contract labour with respect to jobs which are permanent and perennial in nature. They also provide that such jobs shall be executed through regular employees.

4. Following the representation of the respondent-union, the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent a notice to the appellant for conciliation. The conciliation process eventually culminated in a settlement dated 05.04.1997 under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The relevant portion of the settlement is as follows:

“The Union has submitted a list of 32 persons said to have been engaged by the contractors and demanded for their regularisation. Alter verification, it was observed, that the following persons are engaged in Bunker for operating Chutes.

Since this operation is of permanent and perennial nature, it was agreed to regularise the above 19 (nineteen) persons as General Mazdoor, Category-I, in the NCWA-V Pay Scale of Rs. 65.40-1.08-85.52.

In respect of other persons, it was contended, that they are engaged in purely casual nature of jobs, which are not prohibited under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970, and accordingly, they are not eligible for regularisation.”

5. In view of the fact that the settlement is confined to only 19 workmen, the Central Government referred the entire dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (2A)(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 20.05.1997 registered as Dispute Case no. 27/2001 before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela, Odisha. Before the Tribunal, the workmen examined 3 witnesses in support of their case and the management examined 4 witnesses.

6. By its judgment dated 23.05.2002, the Tribunal allowed the industrial dispute and directed the regularization of the remaining 13 workmen. The important findings of the Tribunal are as follows. At the outset, the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection that it had no jurisdiction under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act), 1970 and proceeded to consider the nature of the work that the 13 workmen were performing. Having considered the matter in detail, the Tribunal held that the work of removing spillages in the railway siding, below the bunker and operation of chutes (in the bunker) are regular and perennial in nature. Having considered the evidence of the management witnesses, the Tribunal concluded that the nature of the work is perennial. Accordingly, the remaining 13 workers were directed to be regularized in the following terms:

“The evidence is straight and clear that all the 32 persons were attending the same o