JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 2.5.2001, passed by the learned single Judge, in CWJC Nos. 423 and 451 of 2001, whereby those two writ applications were dismissed and the common award dated 23.9.1996 passed in Reference Case No. 134 and 135 of 1993 was not interfered with. 2. The following disputes were referred in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad for adjudication, at the instance of the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union :-- "Whether the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union for employment of Sri Binay Kumar Singh and 21 others (as per list enclosed) on the roll of Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?" "Whether the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union for employment of Shri Anil Kr. and 22 others (as per list enclosed) on the roll of Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled?" 3. Reference Case Nos. 134 and 135 of 1993 respectively were registered before the tribunal, wherein a common award dated 3rd September, 1996 was passed directing, the management of Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL to regularize the concerned workmen phase wise in category 1. 4. The employers in relation to the management of Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL filed CWJC Nos. 423 and 451 of 1997 (R) in this Court against the aforesaid common award, which were heard by the learned single Judge together and disposed of by the impugned common judgment dated 2nd May. 2001. 5. It was claimed on behalf of the workmen concerned that they were working in the Collieries under M/s. BCCL in regular manner and used to perform the job of permanent and perennial nature, like stone cutting, coal cutting, transporting of machineries and materials, packing and other miscellaneous jobs in under ground as well as on surface, as and when required by the management. They were working under the direct control and supervision of the Manager, Assistant Manager, Over Man, Mining Sirdar, Engineer, Fore Man and other Supervisory Staff of the management and had completed more than 190 days of work in each calendar year starting from the year 1989. They were working under the direct control and supervision of the Manager, Assistant Manager, Over Man, Mining Sirdar, Engineer, Fore Man and other Supervisory Staff of the management and had completed more than 190 days of work in each calendar year starting from the year 1989. The tools as well as the equipments required/needed for doing the aforesaid jobs were also provided by the management. Their attendances were recorded in the statutory form C Register. Both, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Shramik Sahyog Samittee and Mazdoor Vikas Sahyog Samittee were camouflage to avoid and defeat the claims of the workmen in future. Inspite of their long and continuous working their demand for regularization was hot accepted by the management of M/s. BCCL. 6. On the other hand, the management claimed that the workmen concerned were working under the control of respective Co-operative Societies and only their work was supervised by the managements personnel for the purpose of safety and to assess the quantum of working. They are the contractors men and in no way they can be considered as the workmen under the management, on completing 190 or 240 days attendance in their work, for the purpose of regularization. Neither the jobs they were performing were of perennial nature, nor they worked there continuously. 7. It was not in dispute that the concerned workmen of both the reference cases were working since the year 1989 under the aforesaid two Co-operative Societies. The cheques for payment of their wages were prepared by the management in the name of the Co-operative Society and the Secretary thereof used to encash the cheques and distribute the amount among the workers as per the quantum of work done. The work orders were used to be issued to the Co- operative Societies and the working, was checked by the officer of the Colliery so that any casualty due to the acts of the contractors men be avoided. 8. On the basis of evidence on record, the tribunal held that the existence of the Co-operative Societies aforesaid was nothing, but camouflage. Those Societies were intermediaries and the workmen concerned involved in the two reference cases were the direct employees of the Collieries of M/s. BCCL. 8. On the basis of evidence on record, the tribunal held that the existence of the Co-operative Societies aforesaid was nothing, but camouflage. Those Societies were intermediaries and the workmen concerned involved in the two reference cases were the direct employees of the Collieries of M/s. BCCL. The jobs performed by them were admittedly permanent and perennial in nature and thereby irrespective of their continuation in job, they ought to have been considered to be the workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. They had performed perennial nature of work beyond the statutory period as required and as such they were entitled to be considered as the workers of the management and not of the contractors. They have, therefore, acquired right to be regularized in service with the management phase wise in category I with usual scale and benefits. The tribunal, therefore, directed the management to regularize them within six months phase wise in category 1. 9. The learned single Judge considering the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Thezhiall Union Kozhikode and Ors., 1978 (4) SCC 257 , and in Secretary Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 601, declined to interfere with the impugned common award, wherein a finding of fact that there existed employer and employees relationship between the management and the workmen concerned was recorded. which was not perverse and there was no error apparent on the face of record. 10. Mr. Mehta, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. which was not perverse and there was no error apparent on the face of record. 10. Mr. Mehta, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. v. Union Waterfront and Ors., 2001 (7) SCC 1 , and submitted that no doubt in the present case the concerned workmen, In view of the finding of the Industrial Tribunal, have to be treated as the employees of the principal employer, M/s. BCCL and have to be regularized and, therefore, the direction of the Apex Court in paragraph 125(6) of the Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) be applied herein and, accordingly, as and when M/s. BCCL intends to employ regular workmen, it shall give preference to them, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to the maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration their age at the time of their initial employment and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications. 11. Keeping in view the direction of the Industrial Tribunal In the impugned award to the management of the Balihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL to regularize the concerned workmen phase wise in Category I, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Mehta based on the aforesaid Constitution Bench pronouncement regarding regularization of such workmen and modify the impugned award as well as the impugned order of the learned single Judge to the extent that as and when M/s. BCCL intends to employ regular workmen it shall give preference to these 45 persons, if otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing the condition as to the maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration their age at the time of their initial appointment and also relaxing the condition as to the academic qualification other than technical qualification. 12. These two appeals are disposed of with the above observations/direction.