ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 378 of 2001 whereby and whereunder while allowing the writ petition, the Award dated 08.06.2000 passed in Reference No. 97 of 1995 by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad answered in favour of the workman directing the Management of BCCL to regularize the concerned workmen from the date of reference, has been set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner, management of North Tisra Colliery, is an unit of M/s BCCL and M/s Rawal Transcon (P) Limited was allotted the contract of transportation of coal from the colliery to the railway siding on the basis of the work order issued to him and all the work was to be carried out mechanically, no manual labour was required to be engaged on the job of loading of coal at the depot and unloading of coal at the railway siding. The contractor firm selected and recruited its own men for operating the machines and vehicles used in connection with transportation of coal and in that process some unskilled labours were engaged.

The union taking advantage of the situation enrolled few contract workers and raised the dispute to provide employment to 75 persons. The union also raised an industrial dispute with regard to regularization of 75 persons in which conciliation failed and a failure report was submitted to the appropriate government and the appropriate government did not refer the dispute for adjudication.

The union, thereafter, filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1333 of 1995 (R) in which vide order dated 28.06.1995, the appropriate government was directed to refer the dispute for adjudication.

In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad which was registered as Ref. No. 97/95 in which due notices were issued and after hearing both the sides, award dated 08.06.2000 was passed in favour of the workmen.

Being aggrieved with the same, writ petition being CWJC No. 378 of 2001 was preferred which had been allowed by quashing the award dated 08.06.2000 passed in Reference Case No. 97/95.

3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted by referring to the impugned order wherein the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has been reversed.

The reference of the last but one paragraph of the impugned order has been made wherein the reference of the power of judicial review to be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been referred wherein, according to Mr. Roy, although, the learned Single Judge has given an observation that an Award can only be interfered with if there is any perversity in the Award, but in the subsequent paragraph the learned Single Judge has come out with the finding that the Award is perverse and, therefore, a question has been raised that when on the issue of perversity the Award has been reversed, then a discussion ought to have been made by taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses, both produced on behalf of the Management and on behalf of the workmen, so as to test the perversity since, perversity means that wrong appreciation of the material evidence or non-consideration of the evidence produced before the Adjudicator.

According to him, merely by referring to the word perversity, the court of law cannot be allowed to come to the conclusion by taking decision of perversity of Award which is based upon the consideration of the testimony.

It has been contended by Mr. Roy that there might be any perversity but the conclusion regarding the said perversity can only be arrived at if the testimony of the witnesses will be considered by the higher forum, therefore, submission has been mad