H.G. Mishra, J.

Both these writ applications arise out of the same Award and common question of law is involved in both these cases. As such they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

3. The petitioners in both the cases are the Employers in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, and they are aggrieved by the common Award dated 18th September, 2000 passed in Reference Case No.2 of 1994 as also in Reference Case No. 59 of 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad.

4. The Industrial disputes referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, in both these cases are that whether the action of the management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd., was justified in not regularising the services of the workers, who were sponsored by the Workers Union, and terminating there services.

5. The brief facts giving rise to the reference of the industrial disputes, are that the workmen sponsored by the Workers Union claimed that they were engaged in plant cleaning job in Rajrappa Washery of the Central. Coalfields Limited from the year 1987 up to the year 1991-1992, but they had been stopped from duty after they raised the industrial dispute for regularization of their services. It was claimed that the plant cleaning job was permanent in nature and by a Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, there was a prohibition of employment of contract labours for the plant cleaning job. On the other hand, the management had asserted that the concerned persons had never been engaged by the management and they had done the casual nature of job for a very limited period, under a contractor. The management had taken a plea that some of them were contractor's workers and the contractor was engaged for transporting coal from the colliery to the washery by means of dumpers or automatic tippers. Sometimes big chunk of coals were transported by them up to the washery which were kept aside and the contractor was engaged for breaking the coal chunk into small pieces. The management had taken the plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of Rajrappa Washery and the concerned workmen.

6. The Award shows that only one witness was examined by the management who was the Superintending Engineer in Rajrappa Washery. He stated that for transportation of coal, contractors were engaged and in course of transportation if any big chunk of coal comes, it is removed by the pay loaders and stacked in the side and when such chunk of coal becomes huge quantity then contractor is engaged for breaking such coal. He proved four work orders issued to the contractor for breaking coal which had been marked as Ext.-'M-1' series. He had also stated that the workers were selected and engaged by the contractor and their works were supervised by the contractor and they were also paid wages by the contractor. However, the Award shows that no such plea was taken in the written statement of the management, nor it had been stated that any work order was issued to such contractor. Therefore, for the first time the management came up with the story before the Tribunal about the engagement of the contractor and doing some miscellaneous job through contractor. It was also admitted by the management witness that he knew some of the workers by face.

The Award further shows that the management had not filed any registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act regarding the engagement of contractor, nor the license of the contractor under the said Act had been filed and proved by the management. As such, the management had failed to show that their Establishment was registered for engagement of contractor under the Contrac