A worker engaged in jobs of permanent nature cannot be denied regularisation despite an intermediary contractor, and adverse inferences may be drawn against the management's lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 1018 of 2010.

2. The said Writ petition had been filed by the respondents herein challenging the award dt. 20.10.2009 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad ( for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Reference No. 101 of 1995.

The reference

3. The said reference had been made by the Central Government for adjudication of the following issue:-

“Whether the claim of Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for regularisation of services of Sri Jiban Kumar Sarkar and 63 others (as per list Annexed) by the Management of Gopalichak Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/workmen, which had sought the reference, as well as the respondents/Management filed pleadings and also led oral and documentary evidence.

The case of the appellants/workmen

5. The workmen had contended before the Tribunal that they had been regularly and continuously working since 1989 and doing important jobs like installation of machinery, heavy line carrying, laying tramming track and packing and also in smithy works for lifting up tubs from underground and their repairs, boiler cleaning, dressing, stone fall breaking and cleaning, cutting of coal, etc.

6. They claimed that the respondent had directly employed them on hazri basis for different works. According to them, the works they were engaged to perform were of permanent and perennial nature and their jobs were directly connected with the production and mining operations.

7. They claimed that they were working underground regularly and have also put in more than 190 days of attendance in a year of 12 calendar months. According to them, they had been engaged by the Management through a dummy contractor by name Rajendra Prasad, that the said contractor after a short time deserted the workers, that they then approached the Management for their employment, and the Management on their part advised them to form and register in a co-operative and assured them continuation of their employment. They contended that on the basis of the said advice of the Management, they formed a workers’ co-operative in the name and style of ‘Jan Bikash Shramik Sahayog Society’ (for short ‘Society’) and got it registered under the Co-operative Act at Dhanbad. All the workmen were members of the said Society.

8. The Society never obtained a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, and so the above workers are to be deemed to be employees of the Management, particularly when they were working under the guidance, supervision and control of the Management and tools and implements necessary for execution of jobs entrusted to them were also being supplied by the Management.

9. They claimed that the attendance of the workmen was marked in statutory records by the staff of the Managemen