Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha-I, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Vijoy Nandan Sahay for the BSEB through its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. The State is assisted by Mr. Naman Nayak, learned Advocate.

2. The appellant which is a Union of workers has approached this Court against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 808 of 1997, whereby the challenge to the award passed by the Tribunal, refusing to direct for absorption of the workers, who are members of the appellant association, in the services of the Electricity Board has been affirmed and upheld.

3. It appears from the records that an industrial dispute was raised regarding non-absorption of 616 contract labourers working in Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station against different posts, who were not being absorbed in the regular service of the Electricity Board.

4. The issue generated a reference under Section 10(i)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication. The entire dispute is with respect to the answer of the Tribunal and the consequent award with respect to the first point of reference which inter alia had called upon the Tribunal to decide whether a workman in Schedule ‘K’ of Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, who was engaged in perennial nature of work despite the prohibition of the Government for engaging contract labour for such kind of work, such worker earned the right to be absorbed in the services of the Electricity Board and if so, from which date.

5. The Tribunal appears to have rejected the contention of the appellant/Union and held that the documents furnished by the Union regarding the nature of work with which its members were engaged with, exhibited no strong proof that they have been working in the organization as contract labours against permanent and perennial nature of job. The Tribunal found that there was complete lack of evidence regarding workmen having been engaged against permanent/perennial nature of work or that they were qualified for the job which they had been doing and that it was also not established that their services were satisfactory.

6. The Tribunal was also in dark with respect to the adequate number of vacancies for the Union to clamour for absorption its members or that the services of such labourers were so indispensable that there was no way but to accommodate them in the services of the Board.

7. On the Tribunal having considered all aspects of the matter, it was found by it that the total number of sanctioned posts of workmen cadre in the Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station was only 575 and out of such number of posts, approximately 540 posts were occupied and the remaining posts required a very high level of training and expertise as such posts were of technical nature which only a properly trained operator or assistant operator in such power station could perform.

8. Any direction by the Tribunal for absorbing the workmen falling in the list of the Union against permanent/perennial of the Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station would tantamount to carving out more number of sanctioned posts before giving any direction for absorption of workmen.

9. Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant/Union has assailed the award passed by the Tribunal as also its affirmation by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Tribunal in the award and the learned Single Judge while affirming the award travelled beyond the context of the reference, which was only for a determination of the right of the workmen engaged with Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station and kept in Schedule ‘K’ of the organization which was against the perennial nature of work, to be absorbed in the regular service of the Board.

10. Mr. Kumar submits that both the courts did not consider that there was no dispute with respect to the job being of perennial nature, which had been entrusted to such workmen. The issue only related to the earning