JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 26th May, 2010 Reference no. 38 of 1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol.

2. Vide the impugned order the learned Tribunal held as follows:-

“In the above circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the action of the Management of Bhojudih Coal Washery of BCCL in not departmentalizing the 16 referred workmen employed in the job of maintenance of Water Supply System at Intake well Bhojudih Coal Washery is not legal and justified. The workmen are entitled to be departmentalized in appropriate grade i.e. grade-I General Mazdoor and to be treated as Employee of the BCCL from the date of their engagement and shall be entitled to all service benefits as admissible to the regular employees. Monetary benefits accruing out of it shall be disbursed within two months of the notification pending regularization of service papers. Hence it is ordered

ORDER

Let an award as above be and same is passed. Send the copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Sd/-

Presiding Officer

3. Both parties have filed their written notes in the present case.

4. The petitioners’ case herein is that the industrial Tribunal in accordance to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has/had no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned Award. The issue in the reference before the Tribunal was as follows:-

“THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bhojudih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is justified in not departmentalising the 16 contract workers (as shown in the annexure) employed in the job of maintenance of water Supply System at Intake Well at Bhojudih Coal Washery? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from which date ?"

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the tribunal adjudicating the issue under reference, did not deal with the question while passing the impugned award.

6. It is submitted that under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government could refer any dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal only where the matters are related to/specified in the Second Schedule or Third Schedule of the said Act.

7. It is further stated that the appropriate Government, Central or State, before issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, had to take into consideration some factors including whether the job contemplated by the contract labourers is of perennial in nature or not.

8. It is thus submitted that the said tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the said award and it was only the appropriate government who is the authority to consider the case under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act 1970).

9. Considering the point of jurisdiction it is on record that the reference made to the tribunal, which adjudicated the same, was made by the appropriate government and as such the point of jurisdiction raised is decided in the affirmative.

10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 16 contract labourers were engaged by different contractors during the summer season, only to channelize the water to the intake well through temporary channels, when the upstream waters of river Damodar is far away.

11. The said workers were also temporarily engaged in the job of distillation of intake well, annual maintenance of intake well pump and maintenance of pipeline from intake well to siding pool and cleaning of foot valve of the pump and its surroundings, as and when required and it is thus stated that the said job did not exist continuously throughout the year and was not permanent in nature.

12. It is stated that the respondent Union in this case has claimed the absorption of the contract workers upon comparing their work under Bhojudih