JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I Dhanbad dated 12.5.1997 in Reference Case No. 130 of 1990 is under challenge in this writ application at the instance of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. 2. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputes to the Tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of C.C.L. Ltd. P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by not regularising S/Sri. Kalicharan Mahato and 54 other workmen as mentioned in the list attached with Annexure and also not making payment of their wages individually for the period from 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" 3. The case of the concerned workmen is that they were engaged for water supply by the management through contractor and this work was continuous and permanent nature. The water supply work through contractor is under prohibited category of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 and in violation of the said Act, the system was being continued by the Colliery management for supply of water through contractors workers. 4. On the other hand the case of the management was that it was not an industrial dispute as the job of water supply was being carried out in the residential township which is not part of the trade or business of the company. It was stated that unfiltered water was all along available in the residential township. For use of the residents and officers and a small section of the employees, arrangement was made for supplying drinking water from the Wells located in the township and that was purely temporary arrangement. From February, 1988 pumps were installed and the pipe lines laid out to supply drinking water to the residents of the township. It was further stated that the workmen were engaged by the suppliers to supply water as per requirement in the colliery for which the bills were submitted and after passing the same payment was made to the suppliers who used to pay to the workers. The management was not concerned with those persons and therefore, there was no relationship of Master and the Servant between them. The management was not concerned with those persons and therefore, there was no relationship of Master and the Servant between them. It was stated that the water supply was related to the residents of township which falls outside the mine premises and it was not connected with any activities relating to production of coal. 5. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following two issues : (a) As to whether the action of the management by not regularising the workmen, Kalicharan Mahto and 54 others as per list attached with the annexure and not making payment of their wages from 1.2.1988 was justified? (b) If not, to what relief or reliefs the workmen were entitled? 6. Both parties led evidences both oral and documentary. 7. The learned Tribunal held as follows : (a) The concerned workmen worked many more 240 days work with the management under its direct control and supervision in 12 calendar months for years together and their work done was of perennial and continuous nature of job and employment of any contractor-supplier in this permanent nature of job is not permissible under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the engagement of so-called contractor was simply paper arrangement which was sham and camouflage done by the management to deprive the poor workmen from their due wages. (b) That paying such meagre amount to concerned workmen for similar nature of job which are being done by permanent employees of the management in the colliery as well as other collieries also they were being exploited and unfair labour practice was adopted by the management to deprive the workmen from their due claims of wages. (c) That 13 workmen similarly situated and doing similar jobs were regularised by the management in Charhi area of C.C.L. Ltd. and concerned workmen have worked for 8 to 9 years continuously with the management for a number of 240 days of work in all those years. The action of the management in not regularising their services of the workmen was justified in any way and the management is also liable to pay their dues for the period of 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988. The action of the management in not regularising their services of the workmen was justified in any way and the management is also liable to pay their dues for the period of 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988. (d) The management was directed to give notional reinstatement and regularisation to all the workmen from 16,2.1988 and the concerned workmen would be entitled to arrear of the back wages from the date of issuance of the reference, i.e., 4.6.1990 with 40% of the full back wages and other benefits. 8. The aforesaid award of the Tribunal has been challenged inter alia on the ground that residential township in question was away from the mine premises and it is not a part of the mine and that the job in question did not involve or any day work of more than 2 or 3 hours and was not in perennial nature and there was no relationship of the employer and employee or master and servant between the concerned workmen and the management. Therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was bad. 9. On the other hand the respondents have submitted that the finding regarding employer and employee arrived at by the learned Tribunal is on the basis of the evidence on record and therefore, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the aforesaid findings of fact. It was further submitted that the award is wholly based on materials on record and on appreciation of the evidence and there is no perversity In the order of the Tribunal and therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. 11. I have carefully gone through the award of the Industrial Tribunal which is under challenge and find that the Industrial Tribunal has in a very elaborate manner discussed the evidences both documentary and oral adduced by the parties and thereafter, has come to the findings of facts which have already been referred above. 12. Now It has been settled by a series of decision of the Supreme Court that the findings of the Tribunal on facts cannot be disturbed by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and further that the High Court cannot substitute its own finding. 12. Now It has been settled by a series of decision of the Supreme Court that the findings of the Tribunal on facts cannot be disturbed by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and further that the High Court cannot substitute its own finding. Reference in this regard may be made In the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 and in the case of Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bahagat, reported in 2002 (5) Supreme 315 . 13. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner so as to say that the award under challenge is based on error of record or that any of the finding is perverse in any manner. 14. The Tribunal has correctly came to the conclusion that system was camouflage to deprive the concerned workmen from their bonafide rightful claim. 15. In view of the discussions and findings above I do not find it to be a fit case for any interference by this Court. Accordingly this application is dismissed. No costs.