Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 20 th March, 2001 rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, whereby the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the workmen directing their regularisation.

2. The brief facts of the case is that M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL) awarded a turn key contract to M/s. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited (for short MAMC), a Government of India Undertaking, by virtue of agreement dated 9 th December, 1985. It was for complete design, engineering, supply, delivery to site, erection and commissioning of coal washery of 2.5 Million Tones per annum at the cost of Rs. 72,50,00,000/-. The said contractor, MAMC, was required to complete the work i.e. erection of the plant within the stipulated time, commission the same and hand over charge to the BCCL.

3. The contractor, MAMC, in order to execute the work, awarded sub-contract to M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited (for short HSCL). As the contract involved various types of works, the contractor/sub-contractor engaged sub-contractors having specialization on respective items of work.

4. The sub-contractors engaged by HSCL recruited their own men and employed their own machine. They paid wages to their workers and they were solely responsible for supervising the works and exercising all kinds of control over the same.

5. When the works were completed, the sub-contractors retrenched their workers by paying retrenchment compensation, as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the I.D. Act), and they fulfilled other conditions also and released them.

6. The sub-contractor completed the work given to them by the middle of 1991 and all the persons engaged by subcontractors were disengaged after complying with the requirement of the I.D. Act. Their Principal Employer, HSCL, also completed the work of civil construction in the middle of 1991.

7. The concerned workmen were engaged by one M/s. Ravi & Company, who was a sub-contractor engaged by the contractor, MAMC. On completion of the work, the persons engaged by M/s. Ravi & Company were disengaged by making payment of retrenchment compensation and complying with the other requirement of law.

8. Notwithstanding the concerned workmen were engaged by M/s. Ravi & Company, they deliberately and baselessly claimed regularization in the BCCL with proper categorization and sought to raise an industrial dispute. The dispute led to the following reference:

Whether the management of Madhuban Washery Project of M/s, BCCL is justified in not according regularisation with proper categorization and corresponding wage payment as per NCWA-IV to the following 15 workmen employed through sub-contractor, M/s. Ravi & Company? It not to what relief the workmen are entitled?

9. The dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. l, Dhanbad, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the I.D. Act. The same was registered as Reference No. 105 of 1991.

10. The case of the concerned workmen is that they are the workmen of BCCL for all practical purposes and they had continuously worked from 1987 to the middle of 1991 and they are entitled to be regularized as permanent workmen on the pay scale as per National Coal Wage Agreement (for short NCWA). The management of BCCL has not paid the amount of wages to the concerned workmen, payable as per NCWA-IV.

11. According to the management of BCCL, the concerned workmen were not the workmen of BCCL and there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. The concerned workmen were engaged by a petty contractor, M/s. Ravi & Company by the sub-contractor-HSCL. After the completion of the work, M/s. Ravi & Company retrenched the said workmen after giving retrenchment compensation in the middle of 1991, as the petty work, allotted to them, was completed by that time