JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd has prayed for quashing the Award dated 19.3.2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman. 2. It appears that the Central Government referred the following industrial disputes between the Management of Kusunda Collicery of BCCL and their workmen to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication :-- "Whether the demand of National Coal Workers congress for employment on the roll of Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCC1 of Smt. Girija Kamin and 225 others (as per details annexed with Annexure-U-I) with full back wages is justified? If so, to what reliefs the workmen are entitled?" 3. The case of the sponsoring Union on behalf of the concerned workman is that the concerned workman had been working in Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCCL from 1976 to 1983 as Wagon loaders. All of a sudden they were stopped from the work by the Management of BCCL without showing any reason. It is contended that the concerned workmen who are 226 in number were directly employed by the Management and a list was prepared to regularize their services for the period of work done by them from 1976 to 1980 and the said list was sent to the concerned officials of the management but the management could not regularized them oh the job of wagon loaders. According to the Union the concerned workmen were put in continuous service of more than 240 days every year since 1976 onwards. 4. The case of the Management on the other hand is that the Central Government prohibited engagement of contract labour for loading and unloading of coal in the collieries. After coming into force of the notification in 1975, the contracts system of loading coal was completely abolished and the collieries started engaging casual wagon loaders on the loading job. From the year 1977, the colliery management maintained a permanent group of wagon loaders and another group of wagon loaders. In all cases, wagon loaders were issued identity cards. The case of the Management is that the said 226 concerned workmen were never engaged by the Management as permanent casual wagon loader during the period 1976 to 1983. From the year 1977, the colliery management maintained a permanent group of wagon loaders and another group of wagon loaders. In all cases, wagon loaders were issued identity cards. The case of the Management is that the said 226 concerned workmen were never engaged by the Management as permanent casual wagon loader during the period 1976 to 1983. It is stated that the document produced by the Union in support of claim of the concerned workmen that they worked as outsider casual wagon loader are forged and manufactured documents. Lastly, it is stated that there is no scope for the engagement of the concerned workmen. The demand of the Union is therefore, unjustified. 5. The tribunal after considering the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the Management as also the Union come to a finding that relationship of employer and employee has been established and the concerned workmen have worked under the Management. However, applying the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, (1997) LIC 365, the tribunal held that the concerned persons are entitled to regularization but without any backwages. The tribunal further held that the concerned workmen would be entitled to wages as piece rated worker as admissible in National Coal Wage Agreement. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Management assailed the impugned award as being illegal and perverse in law. Learned counsel submitted that the Union failed to establish by cogent and satisfactory evidence that all 226 concerned workmen continuously worked for 240 days. Learned counsel submitted that on this sole ground the Award is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1 . 7. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the workmen on the other hand submitted that sufficient documentary evidence have been adduced by the Union which have been proved by the witnesses clearly establishing that the concerned workmen worked from 1976 to 1983. Learned counsel submitted that there is no perversity in the Award and therefore this Court need not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that there is no perversity in the Award and therefore this Court need not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., 2000 (2) SCC 245. 8. From perusal of the Award it appears that the concerned workmen examined witnesses and proved leave slips issued under the signature of Manager of the Colliery, which have been marked Ext. W-1 series. These slips show that the concerned persons were granted leave by the officials of the colliery at different times. Similarly, the Union also proved overtime slips, which have been marked Ext. W-2 series to show that the concerned workmen have been issued slips to do overtime work. The Union also proved the list of workmen prepared by the Management under the signature of attendance clerk, incharge Colliery and Assistant Colliery Manager and the Manager of the Colliery, which have been marked Ext. W-4. Similarly, the wage sheets of the concerned workmen and another documents have been filed and proved by the management. The Tribunal relying on these documents held that although Management disputed the genuineness all these documents but not a single witness has been adduced to disprove these documents. The Tribunal therefore, recorded a finding that sponsoring Union has been able to prove that the concerned workmen have worked as casual wagon loaders from 1976 to 1983. 9. It is well settled that the Award passed by the Labour Court or the Tribunal can be interfered by the High Court only in a case where there is perversity in the finding of an erroneous approach of law has been taken by the Labour Court or Tribunal. The finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged by filing writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant material evidence adduced before the Labour Court or Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate. In the case of PGI of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54 , the Supreme Court observed :-- "The Labour Court being the final Court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. In the case of PGI of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54 , the Supreme Court observed :-- "The Labour Court being the final Court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however, the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was in sufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan." 10. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. IOB Staff Canteen workers, Union and Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 245 , the Supreme Court while considering the power of this Court under Article 226 in the matter of interference with the Award held as under :-- "The learned Single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally depreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a tribunal, presided over by a judicial officer. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken. The Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in criticism of the order of the learned Single Judge and in ordering restoration of the award of the Tribunal. On being taken through the findings of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench, we are of the view that the Industrial Tribunal had overwhelming materials which constituted ample and sufficient basis for recording its findings, as it did, and the manner of consideration undertaken, the objectivity of approach adopted and reasonableness of findings recorded seem to be unexceptionable. The only course, therefore, open to the writ Judge was to find out the satisfaction or otherwise of the relevant criteria laid down by this Court, before sustaining the claim of the canteen workmen, on the facts found and recorded by the fact- finding authority and not embark upon an exercise or reassessing the evidence and arriving at findings of ones own, altogether giving a complete go-by even to the facts specifically found by the Tribunal below." 11. As noticed above, the Tribunal after appraisal and analyzing the entire evidence recorded a finding of fact that the concerned workmen did the work as casual wagon loader from 1976 to 1983 when all of a sudden Management stopped taking work from them. Having regard to the fact that the Management has failed to satisfy this Court about any perversity in the said finding, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with such finding recorded by the Tribunal. 12. However, the Tribunal has committed error of law in applying the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of AIR India Statutory Corporation (supra). 12. However, the Tribunal has committed error of law in applying the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of AIR India Statutory Corporation (supra). It was the specific case of the Union that these concerned workmen were engaged by the Management as casual wagon/loder and they had been continuously worked from 1976 to 1983. On the other hand, the case of the Management was that the concerned workmen were never engaged or worked in the colliery from 1976 to 1983 and no relationship of employer and employee is at all existed at any point of time. It was not the case of the parties that the concerned workmen were engaged as contract labour. Therefore the ratio decided in the aforementioned case will have no relevancy in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.