R.K. Merathia, J.

1. As both the appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in CWJC No. 761 of 1996 (R), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. On the basis of the following reference, the award in question was passed on 19th December, 1995 in Reference Case No. 141/92 (old)/89/95 (new)

"Whether Sh. Chandradeo Prasad Mandal and 65 other persons employed in Bhuli Township for repairing and maintenance of hand pump through a contractor are to be treated as employees of M/s. BCCL and whether the demand that these persons be regularized in the services of the said management is justified? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled?"

3. The case of the contractors labourers, inter alia, was that Shri Chandradeo Prasad Deo and 65 other workmen, as per the list, were working as Mistry, Plumber, Helper and Fitter for maintaining hand pumps and the water line for supply for water in the quarters of Bhuli township; the job was permanent in nature and they were regularly working since October, 1978; the tools etc. were supplied by the management and they used to repair hand pumps on the basis of slips which were issued by the supervisor on receiving complaint, therefore, they were under direct control and supervision of the Management; they were not given the same scale of wages and allowances, paid to other regular employees.

4. The case of the Management, inter alia, was that there was no employer- employee relationship as contracts were awarded to different parties for ensuring proper functioning of handpumps; the workmen were working under the contractor, Shri Shambhu Nath Pandey; the contractor as well as supervisors and munsi used to inspect the proper working of handpumps; the contractor submitted his bills; he used to select the workmen, as per his requirement from time to time; usually, he engaged about 10 to 12 workmen; however during dry season and emergency conditions the strength of workmen could go up to 30 put in no case 65 of them were engaged at any point of time; the contractor exercised control over his workmen, who were temporary and casual, engaged from time to time considering the, duration of contract; most of the persons in this case are outsiders and job seekers making attempts to get themselves engaged Jnto the service through back door method; they did not work under the Management or under any contractor; engagement of contract labour on civil construction work and allied nature have not prohibited under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971; the Union has no right to demand regularization; it is incorrect that the labourers are working from October, 1978; the maintenance work of hand pumps is not permanent but it is of intermittent nature; and that the labourers are not paid below the prescribed minimum wages.

5. The Industrial Tribunal held that the labourers were employed under the contractor and that they were not the employees under the management directly, but they were the workmen of the management, as the job was of permanent nature and they were working for a long time under the control and supervision of the management. The Tribunal directed the management to re-instate 21 contract labourers listed in group A of the award within one month and regularize and other 45 contract labourers under group B of the award, within one year, in category 1, for the purpose they were engaged in, or in any other department under the management of BCCL.

6. The said award was challenged by the management by filing a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 761 of 1996 (R). The learned Single Judge held that in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377, if the employment was of perennial nature, contract system stands abolished and therefore the contract labours are required to be regularized; and that the Impugned award cannot be held as contrary to