JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the undated award pronounced in the month of August, 1996, by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 153 of 1993, on the following reference: Whether the demand of Dalit Mazdoor Sangh for employment of the dependents of Smt. Pancha Kamin, Dhrupalia Kamin, Mana Kamin, Baishakshi Kamin, Bali Kamin, Phulmani Kamin and Dugenija Kamin and also for employment of S/Shir Ramphal Turi, Meghu Turi, Barho Bhuiya, Putu Munda and Mantu Bouri is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled? 3. The case of the Union inter alia was that on 30.6.1975, the Management stopped the concerned workmen from the work abruptly and illegally. The Management agreed to provide employment to those workmen who had put seventy- five days attendance during any of the calendar year between 1973-1976, pursuant to which, the concerned workmen represented before the Management but no employment was provided and thus industrial dispute was raised. 4. The stand of the Management inter alia was that the concerned workmen did not work under the Management and the same will be clear from the fact that their names were not available in the records of the Company. 5. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner submitted that without any basis, the Tribunal held that the concerned workmen were de-listed casual workers of Kusunda Colliery, and were entitled to employment pursuant to the decision taken by the Management in the year 1980 to the effect that the de-listed female employees, who worked for more than seventy-five days in a calendar year, could offer their son/husband in lieu of her absorption as badli miners/loaders, for deploying as per the requirement. He further submitted that the specific case of the Management was that the concerned workmen did not work under the Management and thus the said decision of the Company was not available to them. With reference to the of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 Lab LC 987, he submitted that the onus was on the Union/Workmen to prove that they worked for seventy-five days in a calendar year, which they have failed to discharege. With reference to the of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 Lab LC 987, he submitted that the onus was on the Union/Workmen to prove that they worked for seventy-five days in a calendar year, which they have failed to discharege. He further submitted that the Tribunal also has not recorded any finding that the concerned workmen worked for more than seventy- five days in calendar year, He asserted that the Tribunal has wrongly recorded that it is admitted position that the concerned workmen worked for more than seventy-five days. He further submitted that the dispute was stale. He lastly submitted that the Tribunal could not have extended the scheme by giving liberty to the concerned workmen to apply for employment and directing the management to engage them. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union/Workmen submitted that Form M produced on behalf of the workmen established that they have worked for more than seventy-five days. 7. It appears that the award has been passed on the basis of purported Form M documents A.E.C.D. (private employees) Scheme, 1974, produced to show that the concerned workmen had P.F. scheme under the signature of Manager of Colliery. Learned Counsels appearing for the Union/Workmen admitted that the said Form M was not exhibited before the Tribunal. 8. I am satisfied that the award is perverse. The finding that the concerned workmen were de-listed workers is based on the discussions held between the Management and the Union, but there is nothing in the said discussions, justifying such finding. Moreover, there is no finding that the concerned workmen worked for seventy-five days even on the basis pf the said Form "M", which was wrongly relied by the Tribunal. I am also convinced that the Tribunal could not have extended the said decision of the Company, taken in the year 1980, at the time of passing the award in the year 1996, by asking the dependants/workmen to apply and directing the Management to engage them. Moreover, at this distance of time the Management cannot be directed to engage the workmen as per their decision taken in the year 1980. 9. In any view of the matter, the impugned award cannot be upheld. The writ petition is allowed and award is accordingly, set aside. However, no order as to costs.