R.Banumathi,C. J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated19.7.2013 passed in W.P(L) No.3015/2001, in and by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the award dated 26.12.2000 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference No.28/1992.

2. Brief facts: The sponsoring Union, i.e. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, had made a demand for regularization of Sunder Dusadh and twenty-six others on the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) on the ground that they have been working in the permanent nature of job since long under the direct control and supervision of the Management of Loyabad Coke Plant of BCCL, but they are being paid less wages than the wages prescribed under the National Coal Wage Agreement and the wages are being disbursed in the name of intermediary, which does not control and supervise the work of the concerned persons. On the basis of the demand made by the sponsoring Union, conciliation proceedings took place before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, who submitted failure report. By the order dated 26.3.1992, the Central Government had referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularization of Shri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others on the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?

3. By the impugned award dated 26.12.2000, the Tribunal directed the management to regularize the workmen holding that (i) the Management has not filed any registration certificate to show that the management has got its establishment registered for the engagement of contractor as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and therefore, it must be held that the concerned persons are the workmen of the Management and the arrangement with the Co-operative Society is nothing but to camouflage the real issue and (ii) the Management has not filed attendance register and therefore, adverse inference to be drawn against the management that the work is of permanent nature, which supports the claim of the workmen that they have been working for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the Management filed W.P(L) No.3015/2001. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and the materials, learned Single Judge held that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the engagement of the workmen through a contractor was a camouflage, was clearly an erroneous finding in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Nath & Ors. v. National Fertilizer Ltd. [(1992) 1 SCC 695, para 22]. Learned Single Judge further held that there is no evidence to show that all the twenty-seven workmen were in the regular employment of the management for a period of 240 days in a calendar year so as to place the onus upon the employer to rebut the same and the Tribunal, without any legal basis or justification, drew an adverse inference against the management for non-production of the attendance register contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition setting aside the award, the workmen have preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Single Judge did not take into consideration mainly two facts – (i) the fact relating to violation of the provisions of CLRA Act and (ii) the fact that the engagement of the contractor was merely a camouflage and the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the management has not produced the registration certification and while so learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It was contended that there was sufficient material to show that the job is of permanent and perennial in nature and the same was supervised and controlled by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document