JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this application, the Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Bokaro, has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 75 of 1991, whereby the Tribunal after discussing the entire materials on record has directed the Management to reinstate and regularise the concerned 35 workmen in their services with effect from 1.7.1990 with payment of 30 per cent full back wages after holding as follows : (i) That the name of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Limited, the Construction Company drawn by the Management is simply a paper arrangement from April, 1986 onwards and is , a sham and camouflage to show that they are working under the contractor-company, whereas, the fact is that the workmen were directly under the control and supervision of the Washery Management for running the Plant commercially for the benefit of the Management and they were being paid their wages by the Management and, as such there was relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and the Management from April, 1986 till their termination on 1.7.1990. (ii) The workmen were disengaged or stopped from work arbitrarily and without any rhyme or reason by the Management from 1.7.1990 without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their stoppage of work was certainly illegal and justified and the workmen are entitled for payment of back wages. (iii) There is nothing to show that after the stoppage of workmen, the workmen were engaged in some other pursuits for financial gain. 2. The Central Government referred the fallowing dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. "Whether the 35 persons whose names are shown in ,the Annexure and who were employed by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works, a Contractor at Dugda Coal Washery are to be treated as workmen of M/s. BCCL and whether the demand of the Coal Washeries Workers Union that these persons be regularised/absorbed in the services of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled." 3. If so, to what relief are these persons entitled." 3. The case of the workmen and the sponsoring Union in short was that they were employed by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Limited, a Contractor Firm for the construction, maintenance and operation of Dugda Froth Flotation Plant from 1982 to October, 1987 and thereafter for construction and maintenance and operation of dump slurry preparation plant from 16.10.1987 to 1990 at Dugda Coal Washery under M/s. BCCL as skilled workers and they worked continuously and regularly and completed more than one year continuous service with the Management of M/s. BCCL. 4. The further case of the concerned workmen was that the contract was given to M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. for the construction and erection of Froth Floation Plant of Dugda Washery in the year 1982 and these workmen were employed by the said Contractor Firm during the period 1982 to 1987 as skilled workmen. 5. After completion of the construction of the said Plant on 15.4.1986. the Management of Dugda Washery engaged these workmen in the operation of the Plant itself and paid wages to them as skilled workers because skilled workers were not available in the Management for Dugda Washery to operate and run the Plant on commercial basis and these workmen worked, as such, till 15.10.1987. 6. It was further stated that the said Contractor was a contractor for construction of the Plant only and not for the operation, of the said Plant and. as such, during, the period from 15.10.1986 to 15.10.1987, the concerned workmen operated the plant and being employed by the Management, they were paid their wages by the Management, during the said period. The Management assured them to take them in regular services after absorption in the Management and they were asked to get registered their names to the Employment Exchange which they did but thereafter, the Management recruited 100 workmen afresh in the year 1988, who had no working experience for the operation of the Plant, ignoring the claim of the concerned workmen, who were highly skilled workmen and had the experience of working and operating the Plant also. The Construction Company also recommended their case for their absorption. Some of the workmen worked up to 1.7.1990 in dump slurry plant and thereafter all of them were retrenched. Thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised through the Union. 7. The Construction Company also recommended their case for their absorption. Some of the workmen worked up to 1.7.1990 in dump slurry plant and thereafter all of them were retrenched. Thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised through the Union. 7. On the other hand, the case of the Management in short is that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and the concerned workmen were the workmen of the concerned Contractor Company and they had no right for employment as per the law. It was said that for the installation of Froth Flotation Plant, the Contract work was given to M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. to construct the plant on turn-key-basis. 8. The said work was started in the year 1983 and completed in the year 1986 and it was commissioned in that very year i.e. in 1986. After commissioning of the Plant, the said Contractor was given the Contract for maintenance and operation of the Plant for a period of two months which was extended up to 15.10.1986. The Contractor engaged the concerned workmen who were doing the previous job of construction and installation of the Froth Flotation Plant. 9. It was further said that the Contractor Company was also engaged for dump- slurry preparation plant in March, 1988, which was completed in December, 1989 for training the employees of the Management, the said Contractor was given extension of time from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990 and thereafter the plant was taken over by the Management of BCCL. It was said that the Contractor had engaged his workmen and the payments against bills was made by the Management as per the terms of the contract. 10. Further case of the Management was that after taking over the Froth Flotation Plant and dump slurry preparation plant, the Management employed its own workers for running the said plants and there was no workers of the Contractors. The Management never employed the concerned workmen as claimed by the concerned workmen. 11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration :-- 1. Whether the concerned workmen were initially employed by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works, the Contractor of M/s. BCCL? 2. Whether the demand of the workmen and the sponsoring union for their regularisation and absorption in the service of M/s. BCCL is justified? and 3. Whether the concerned workmen were initially employed by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works, the Contractor of M/s. BCCL? 2. Whether the demand of the workmen and the sponsoring union for their regularisation and absorption in the service of M/s. BCCL is justified? and 3. If so, what other relief or reliefs they are entitled? 12. It appears that on behalf of the Management two witnesses were examined. One of them was the Personal Manager of the Dugda Coal Washery and the other was a Senior Executive Engineer of the said Washery. Some witnesses were also examined on behalf of the workmen and both the parties adduced documentary evidence in support of their claim. 13. The learned Tribunal considered the admission of the Management-witness No. 1. who had admitted that when the dump slurry plant was commissioned in the year 1989, the concerned workmen were associated with the work and they continued till 30.6.1990. Further important fact which was noticed that MW 1 admitted that no global tender was floated for running and maintenance of those plants. 14. The Tribunal further noticed the , statement of MW 2, wherein, he had stated that a tender was floated for construction of Froth Flotation Plant and not for dump slurry preparation plant and further that no separate tender was floated for running and maintaining of the aforesaid plant commercially and as per the terms of the contract, the Management was to provide manpower for running the Froth Flotation Plant and that there was no contract with the Contractor for supply of labourers to the Management for the same. 15. On scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen, the Tribunal took notice of the fact that by Exhibit W-1 the Management assured the concerned workmen to regularise their services if they got themselves registered through the Employment Exchange. 16. 15. On scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen, the Tribunal took notice of the fact that by Exhibit W-1 the Management assured the concerned workmen to regularise their services if they got themselves registered through the Employment Exchange. 16. The learned Tribunal after an elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the submissions made on their behalf as well as the decisions cited by them, held that the workmen regularly worked for running and maintaining the Froth Flotation Plant from April 1986 onwards and also for construction of dump slurry preparation plant from November 1987 and for its running and maintenance from January 1990 to 30.6.1990 commercially for the benefit of the Management, on being asked by the Management vide Exhibit W-32 to W-36 and Exhibit M-5 series and, as such, they completed more than 240 days of work in 12 calendar months for years together and, therefore, their stoppage/ termination of work from 1.7.1990, without compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was bad and, therefore, the concerned workmen were entitled for reinstatement from 1.7.1990 onwards i.e. the date from which the concerned workmen were stopped from working by the Management. 17. It was further held that the name of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Limited, the Construction Company drawn by the Management was simply a paper arrangement and was a sham and camouflage to show that the concerned workmen were working under the Contractor. In fact the workmen were directly under the control and supervision of the Management for running the Plant of the Washery for the benefit of the Management. 18. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 , has submitted that in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned award of the Tribunal directing the Management to reinstate/absorb the concerned workmen in their services and also to pay 30% of the full back wages is illegal, unjustified and cannot be sustained. Mr. Mr. Mehta further cited by producing the Xerox-copies of the judgments passed by this Court in WP (L) No. 3375 of 2001 with WP (L) No.5440 of 2001 M/s. BCCL, through its Employers, Dhanbad (Petitioner in both the cases) v. Their Workmen represented by the Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad and Anr. (Respondents in WP (L) 3375/2001) and Their Workmen represented by Area Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Putkee Colliery, Mazdoor Sangh, Putkee Colliery, Kusunda, Dhanbad & another (Respondents in WP (L) No.5440 of 2001), decided on 11.9.2003 and also in CWJC No. 1889 of 1998 (Employers in relation to the Management of Bhuli Town Administration of BCCL, Dhanbad v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial No. 2 at Dhanbad and Anr., decided on 23.12.2003. It has further been submitted that the impugned award is perverse. 19. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal holding that there was relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the concerned workmen, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal in view of the law settled by the Apex Court. He further submitted that even a wrong finding of fact is not liable to be disturbed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction, unless and until, it is held that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse being not based on facts or on the apparent error on the face of the record. 20. Certain relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others, (supra), are quoted hereinbelow : "71. By definition the term "contract labour" is a species of workman. A workman shall be so deemed when he is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. By definition the term "contract labour" is a species of workman. A workman shall be so deemed when he is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. A workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the principal employer or by his agent with or without the knowledge of the principal employer; or (2) in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master-and-servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But there a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai case and in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. case etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour. 76. The term "workman" as defined in Clause (i) of Section 2(1) of the CLRA Act is as follows : 2. case etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour. 76. The term "workman" as defined in Clause (i) of Section 2(1) of the CLRA Act is as follows : 2. (1) (i) workman means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person-- (A) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (B) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or (C) who is an outworker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles and materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the put- worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer. 77. The definition is quite lucid. It has two limbs. The first limb indicates the meaning of the term as any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. It is immaterial that the terms of employment are express or implied. The second limb contains three exclusionary classes; (A) managerial or administrative staff; (B) supervisory staff drawing salary exceeding Rs. 500 (p.m.) and (C) an outworker, which implies a person to whom articles and materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up. The second limb contains three exclusionary classes; (A) managerial or administrative staff; (B) supervisory staff drawing salary exceeding Rs. 500 (p.m.) and (C) an outworker, which implies a person to whom articles and materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up. cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processes for sale for purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the outworker or in some other place, not being the premises under the control and management of the principal employer. 118. We have quoted the definitions of these terms above and elucidated their import. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and "workman", shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The circumstances under which contract labour could be treated as direct workman of the principal employer have already been pointed out above. 144. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 19.8.1999 of the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in LPA No. 214 of 1999 (R). The Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 145. The case arose out of the award dated 3.10.1996 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1 directing the appellant to absorb the contract labour. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the contract labourers were not regularised to deprive them from the due wages and other benefits on a par with the regular employees under sham paperwork by virtue of the sham transaction. It was also pointed out that the workmen in other coal washery were regularised. The claim of the appellant that the washery was, given to the purchaser was not accepted as being a sham transaction to camouflage the real facts. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the entire material confirmed the award and the Division Bench declined to interfere in the LPA. We find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The claim of the appellant that the washery was, given to the purchaser was not accepted as being a sham transaction to camouflage the real facts. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the entire material confirmed the award and the Division Bench declined to interfere in the LPA. We find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs." 21. Therefore, it is clear that for coming to a finding as to whether the contract labour is a workman under the Management is or is not, depends upon the facts of each case. According to the Apex Court, where a workman is hired in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a Contractor, he merely acts as an agent, so there will be a master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. 22. In the present case, the learned Tribunal after consideration of the evidence of both the parties has come to a finding that the workman regularly worked for running and maintaining the Froth Flotation Plant from April, 1998 onwards and also for construction of dump slurry preparation plant from November, 1987 and then from January, 1990 to 30.6.1990 for running and maintaining the same commercially for the benefit of the Management on asking by the Management itself. On the basis of the documentary evidence, namely, Exhibit W-32, W-36 and Exhibit M-5 series. It was further held that the construction Company drawn by the Management was simply a paper arrangement and as such was a sham and camouflage that they were working under the Contractor Company. Rather the fact was that the workmen were directly under the control and supervision of the Management for running the plant commercially. 23. In view of the above findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that even according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case i.e. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (supra), the findings of the Tribunal in that regard was perfectly legal and valid. 23. In view of the above findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that even according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case i.e. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (supra), the findings of the Tribunal in that regard was perfectly legal and valid. It is also relevant to mention here that in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (supra), from paragraphs 144 and 145 of the said judgment, it appears that the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1999, of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 214 of 1999 (R), wherein the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, which arose out of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, directing the appellant to absorb the contract labourers on the basis of appreciation of evidence that the contract labourers were not regularised to deprive them from the due wages and other benefits under sham paper work by virtue of sham transaction, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the direction of the Tribunal, wherein, it was held that the workmen were entitled to be absorbed in the coal washery and ultimately the appeal field before the Supreme Court was dismissed. So far as the decision in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its employers, Dhanbad. (in WP (L) No. 3375 of 2001 with WP (L), No. 5440 of 2001) (supra) by this Court is concerned, as it appears from Paragraph 11 of the said judgment, this Court noticed the fact that no prayer was made by the workmen for their regularisation of their service, rather the prayer was for regular appointment, whereas, in the case in hand, the fact is otherwise and in this case, the prayer of the concerned workman was for regularisation/absorption in their services, therefore, the aforesaid decision in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in WP (L) No. 3375 of 2001 with WP (L) No. 5440 of 2001 (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similarly, the decision in the case of CWJC No. 1889 of 1998 is not applicable in the present case, because as it appears from Paragraph 12 of the said judgment that in that case, the Tribunal had come to a finding that the workers engaged by the Contractors was for the benefit of the Management of BCCL and, therefore, it shall be presumed that there existed the relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the workman and on those findings the Tribunal directed for regularisation and reinstatement of the concerned workman but in the present case, there is a clear cut findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of materials on record that the relationship of employer and employees existed between the Management and the workmen and it was not on presumption. Nothing specific has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, from which it can be said that any of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal is not based on. record or that the findings arrived at is on the basis of the apparent error of record, therefore, in my view, the award of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. On the contrary, I find that the award of the Tribunal is wholly based on the materials on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary and, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and thus this application is dismissed. No costs.