JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The Management of Kusunda Colliery of BCCL has challenged the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad, dated 26.7.1996, in Reference No. 306 of 1986, whereby the learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the workmen, holding that the demand of the Union for regularising the concerned workmen, namely, Ulfat Mian and 9 others is justified and gave a direction to the Management to prepare a 1st as per annexure of the reference to regularise them within a period of six months from the date of implementation of the award and during the intervening period, they should be given job of casual nature of same category having equal pay of permanent employees. 2. The facts of the matter in short is that in exercise of the power under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government referred the following dispute for adjudication :-- "Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh that the Management of Kusunda Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited should regularise on the rolls of the Colliery 10 workmen whose names are given below, is justified? If so, to what relief are these workmen entitled?" The case of the workmen is that they were working as Stone Cutters at Kusunda Colliery continuously and regularly since 1974, under the direct control, guidance and supervision of the company and all the tools, materials including explosives and equipments for their work were supplied by the management. The job of stone cutting is a prohibited category under the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. On the demand of the workmen, a bipartite agreement was reached that the Management of Kusunda Colliery and it was decided that within seven days after checking the attendance from Form C Register in respect of the workmen shall be completed and shall be forwarded to the Headquarters for necessary orders but nothing was done and then the Union raised an industrial dispute and having failure in conciliation, the reference was made by the Central Government. On the other hand the case of the Management is that no relationship of employer and employees existed between the Management the concerned workmen. On the other hand the case of the Management is that no relationship of employer and employees existed between the Management the concerned workmen. The Management used to engage contractors for various type of jobs for a temporary period of 3 to 6 months and the contractor used to perform the contract job from their workmen. The contractor used to supervise the job of their workers and they used to make payment to those workers deputed on those jobs. The concerned workmen used to carry on cutting and repairing of surface drains during the Rainy season and used to carry on job of underground drains for diverting the underground waters to underground sump. Ulfat Mian engaged some persons of his company at a time and carried on a work on the basis of a work order issued to him. In the year 1982, the Management abolished all engagement of contract labours and decided to carry of miscellaneous contract jobs including repair of drain or cutting of drains by engaging a group of casual workers designated as General Mazdoors and those who completed 190 days attendance in the calendar year of 240 days attendance were regularised. The further case of the Management is that the case of the concerned workmen employed by Ulfat Mian were also examined and then it was found that none of them were eligible for employment as they had not put in 190 days attendance underground in any calendar year or 240 days attendance on the surface. 3. The learned Tribunal after discussing the respective cases of the parties and the materials on the record after discussing the evidence, held that it was hard to believe that within 8 years, they did not complete 190 days work in underground or 240 days in surface and it was further held that the concerned workmen performed the job of stone cutters with the help of implements supplied by the Management and even the work of blasting with the explosives substance supplied by the company and they acceded work of 190 days as well as 240 days and thereby a right was accrued to them for being regularised as per the policy decision of the BCCL. 4. 4. The learned Tribunal ultimately, further held on consideration of the facts and materials on record that the nature of job, which was performed by the workmen concerned was very important job in the Colliery and because they had to perform stone cutting in the underground which is the pivot of the coal industries and the blasting etc. which cannot be done by a non expert or an ordinary person and particularly this system was allowed to be continued by the Management in a camouflage of appointment through contractors in order to obtain higher jobs with lower remuneration ignoring the principles of equal wages for equal job. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the finding of the learned Tribunal was perverse as it committed an error of record in not taking into consideration the evidence of W.W. 1 Ulfat Mian in its right perspective and, therefore, the direction of the learned Tribunal was not justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the finding of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be disturbed by this Court after re-appreciating the evidence and this Court should refrain itself from substituting its own finding over the finding of facts arrived at by the learned tribunal. 7. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence adduced by the concerned workmen and since no evidence was adduced by the Management and therefore, the award in question is perfectly legal and justified. 8. Considering the respective cases of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the impugned award, I find that the learned Tribunal has considered fully in details the evidence of W.W. I Ulfat Mian and then on consideration of the entire materials on record has answered the reference in favour of the workmen, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, and hold that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of record and the finding of facts arrived at by the learned tribunal, does not require any interference and the same cannot be said to be perverse. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application and, as such, this application is dismissed but without any cost.