Judgment Tapen Sen, J.-Hard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. At the very outset Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed permission to add Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Cause Title of the Writ Application. Let him do so during the course of the day. However, he is directed to deposit additional Court Fee within a period of one week from the date of signing of this judgment. 3. This Writ Application is directed against the award dated 5.8.1997 passed by this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 78 of 1993, whereby and whereunder after having delved deep into the matter and after having weighed evidences and also after having considered the facts involved, came to a conclusion that the concerned workman deserved to be regularized and accordingly directed such regularization with effect from 1.1.1992 together with 40% of full back wages. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the concerned workman did not perform any activity that was connected with the ultimate output of the Management nor was it connected with mining activities and this nature of job and neither permanent nor perennial. He has further submitted that in the absence of any employer-employee relationship, the Management could not be directed to regularize the concerned workman. 5. Upon perusal of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad, this Court is of the opinion that the relevant paragraphs which really clinch the issue are paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Upon perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs it is evident that there were evidences before the Tribunal which made it come to a conclusion that payments were made to the workman by the Management. Moreover, the evidence of MW-1 which has been taken note of at paragraph 17 goes to show that it was the responsibility of the Management to arrange supply of potable water. 6. Moreover, the evidence of MW-1 which has been taken note of at paragraph 17 goes to show that it was the responsibility of the Management to arrange supply of potable water. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the concerned workman had .been engaged privately by the residents of the colony and on their request the Management had agreed to pay and that he was not under the actual control of the Management has also been adequately taken note of at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the award. At paragraph 18, while taking note of the aforementioned statements, the learned Tribunal at paragraph 20 referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to a conclusion that the nature of the work performed by the concerned workman was permanent and it was through out the year. Moreover, from the evidences the Tribunal also rightly came to the conclusion that the workman was working continuously for a very long period of time and that he was performing duties which the Management was required to perform i.e., supply of drinking water. The learned Tribunal therefore rightly came to a conclusion that the demand for regularization was proper and accordingly, allowed the said prayer. 7. From perusal of the award it is further apparent that the entire case has been dealt with in extenso by the learned Tribunal weighing evidence at different stages. The scope of judicial review cannot be allowed to be enlarged to upset pure questions of facts nor can this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 substitute its jurisdiction with that of the jurisdiction vested upon the Labour court. 8. For all the reasons stated therefore this Court is of the opinion that the award of the learned Tribunal is neither perverse nor malafide in any manner whatsoever. However, so far as the award allowing 40% of the back wages is concerned, the same cannot be sustained because paragraph 2 of the award discloses that it was the workman's case himself that he was engaged by the management to carry potable water from the management's water tap to the quarters of the Ropeways Division although this was the responsibility of the management. It is also apparent from the same paragraph that a water carrier is a permanent employee who got payment in the Category-I rates of wages plus other benefits, but the workman was paid on piece-rated basis at the rate of Re. 1.00 per "bhar" of water and payment was made by the management at Bhulanbararee once a month after calculating the number of tins (“Bhar") without any other benefits except medicine for ailment besides provision of accommodation in the colony. It is also further evident that at some time, the services of all such water carriers were regularized by the management of BCCL in various collieries but the concerned workman was left out for which he filed representation but to no avail. On the contrary, from 5.6.91 he was stopped from work without any notice or compensation. That being the position, the relief of 40% of full-wages appears to be not at all proper. In any event, upon implementation of the award and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, all that the concerned workman would have been entitled to was regularization and monetary benefits would have flowed on and from that date only, i.e., prospectively and not retrospectively. Consequently the Writ Application is allowed in part. The direction in. so far as regularization is concerned, is upheld while the direction in so far as back wages are concerned, is set aside. No order as to costs.