1. Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government, at the instance of the workmen, represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. Dhanbad, referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad :

"Whether the demand of the union for regularization of Sri Ishak Khan and 26 others (as per list annexed) by the Management of Lodna area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is justified? If so, to what benefit the workmen are entitled and from which date ?"

2. According to the labour union aforesaid all the 27 workmen were performing jobs in the underground, which were perennial and prohibitory in nature. They were working since 1980 and were engaged in various nature of jobs relating to produc-tion of coal and safety of mines at Lodna area.

3. According to the Management there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and those 27 persons. They were strangers and never worked under the management. Any appointment letter, identity card, pay- slip or any other material was not produced to show that they had worked in any capacity. Some times the contractor were engaged by the management for casual limited jobs like white-washing or repair works as and when required and, therefore, those persons if at all worked in Lodna area, they worked through the contractors. They cannot claim their regularization in service with the management.

4. The Tribunal gave award dated 11th February, 1999, in the aforesaid Reference Case, No. 78 of 1995, holding that for all practical purposes, the concerned 27 workmen were employees of the management and were, therefore, entitled to be regularized in service by the management of Lodna area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

5. The Tribunal came to the finding that the concerned workmen performed duty like that of regular employees in the underground continuously for years together. The management did not dispute so far the performance of job by the concerned workmen in the colliery is concerned, although their names did not appear in the regular roll as the workers of the management and they were not paid directly against pay-slips, but through the intermediary, like contractors.

6. The management challenged the aforesaid award in this Court vide CWJC No. 1309 of 1999 (R), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 26.2.2001, on the ground that the findings recorded by the Tribunal was based on findings of facts on appraisal of evidence available on the record and, as such, no interference was required with the same,

7. Mr. Mehta, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., 2001 (7) SCC 1, wherein a Constitution Bench held that the definition of the term "contract labour" is meant a work where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a principal employer through the contractor, he merely being an agent, there cannot be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. The workman will be in fact, employees of the contractors. It was further held that where the contractors were found simply a camouflage, in that case, the contract labour working in the establishment with the principal employer were infact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer, who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the condition, as may be specified by it for that purpose.

8. The Apex Court, therefore, directed that in such circumstance as and when the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall given preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the