JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL, for short) being not satisfied with the award dated 26th February, 1993, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 93 of 1991 has challenged the award. 2. The learned Presiding Officer answered the reference in favour of the workmen and held that 19 workmen out of 21 in question are entitled for regulariza-tion and directed the Management of M/s. BCCL accordingly. 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 referred the following disputes for adjudication vide order No. L-2001/2336/90-I.R. (Coal I) dated 8th April, 1991. "Whether the 21 persons indicated in the annexure who were employed through contractors are workmen of the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL and whether the claim for their departmentalization and regularization in service with the said management is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?" 4. The name of 21 workmen were shown in the annexure to the reference. 5. The workmen claimed to be working in the Coal Washery since 1981. 6. In the written statement the Management disputed the claim and took plea that the workmen had been working under different contractors and had no relationship of employer and employee. As such there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 lies. 7. According to the Counsel for the Management, the job of workmen was very limited and is not required to engage 15 workers in a day. The Management has already taken steps for modification and alteration of the plants to be done by the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Ranchi. After modification there will be no requirement of manual worker or the contractors. c8. Similar plea has been taken by the Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL. 9. From the impugned award dated 26th February, 1993 passed in Reference No. 93/91 it will be evident that the learned Presiding Officer determined the claim taking into consideration the relevant facts and evidence as were placed by the parties. 10. It appears that the Steel Authority of India Ltd.. was the owner of the Washery. 9. From the impugned award dated 26th February, 1993 passed in Reference No. 93/91 it will be evident that the learned Presiding Officer determined the claim taking into consideration the relevant facts and evidence as were placed by the parties. 10. It appears that the Steel Authority of India Ltd.. was the owner of the Washery. The workmen in question were working in Dugda Coal Washery as contract labours of contractors since 1981. The Washery subsequently transferred to M/s. BCCL w.e.f. 1st October, 1983. Even after transfer of the ownership of the Washery the workmen continued to perform work in the Washery. Though a number of contractors were changed but the workmen in question were engaged and continued to work since the initial engagement made in the year 1981. . 11. The Management witness No. 1, Shri Niranjan Kumar Ghosh stated that the coking work is being done by the workmen since 1982-83. The Management witness No. 2 stated that the coking system of coal came into practice since 1974-75. The attendance register (Ext. W-8) for the year 1986-87 shows that from January to September, 1987 the days Of employment varied from 15 days to 25 days in a month. It came to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer that as per Section 25(b) of the I.D. Act, .1947 the workmen In question continuously worked in the calendar years. For example, during October, 1986-87 Shri Awadesh Kumar Singh and Mahabir Thakur (Sl. No. 1 and 2) completed 262 days and 281 days respectively apart from the leave granted to them. 12. In the aforesaid background, if the learned Presiding Officer directed to regularize the services of 19 out of 21 workmen i.e. directed to appoint the workmen on regular basis, I find no reason to differ with the finding of facts. 13. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.