JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner who is the union representing the concerned workmen has challenged the award dated 20.10.1994 passed by the Central Government Tribunal in Reference Case No. 206/89 whereby the tribunal has answered the reference against the workmen and held they are not entitled to be regularized by the management. 2. It appears that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute to the tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in not regularizing Shri Basant Paswan and ten others is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?" 3. The case of the workmen is that they were in the service of Bhowra Colliery since 1986. Instead of regularizing their services they were stopped from working by the management with effect from 14.9.1987. Their further case is that they were working as stone cutter in the colliery and were also doing the work of loading tubs. 4. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that the concerned workmen were never employed in Bhowra colliery. As a matter of fact the management engaged contractors to do certain odd works in stone industry. The contract labourers left the work when the contract was completed. 5. Both parties adduced evidence before the tribunal. The tribunal after considering the evidences, came to the conclusion that the workmen were working under the direct control and supervision of the management who was paying their wages directly. 6. I have heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Before the tribunal the workmen proved Ext. 1 which is a document showing that the concerned workmen were doing the work of stone cutting. Ext. 2 is the photo copy of a letter of request to the Medical Officer by the officer of the management requesting to attend one of the workmen, the contract labour, for the injury in his left leg which was caused due to stone cutting. The workmen also adduced evidence to show that they were engaged as underground stone cutters which is perennial nature of job. 8. The workmen also adduced evidence to show that they were engaged as underground stone cutters which is perennial nature of job. 8. From perusal of the award it appears that the most crucial and pertinent question for decision before the tribunal was whether the nature of work done by the concerned workmen was of perennial nature or not. Without deciding this question the tribunal proceeded on the basis that since the concerned workmen were engaged by the contractor and they were paid their wages directly by the contractor, they were not entitled to any relief. In my opinion, the tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and has not recorded a positive finding with regard to the nature of the job being performed by the concerned workmen. 9. For the aforesaid reason, I allow this writ application, set aside the impugned award passed by the tribunal and remit the matter back to him for passing fresh award after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say that the tribunal shall record its finding as indicated hereinabove.