JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioners claim their reinstatement pursuant to the Award dated 3.3.1983, passed in Reference Case No. 58/1981, on the ground that they are the genuine workmen under the said Award under serial nos. 9, 11 and 15 respectively. 2. 39 workmen were working as contract labours under a Company which was subsequently taken over by the respondents-BCCL. They worked in BCCL from December, 1979 to January, 1981 and thereafter they were removed from service. An industrial dispute was raised whether the Management was justified in not absorbing 39 workmen. The Award was passed on 3.3.1983, under which, Management was directed to reinstate all the 39 workmen with full back wages. The award was challenged by the Management by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed. The appeal filed by the Management before the Supreme Court, was also dismissed in limine. Thereafter disputes arose between several persons, as to who is the actual workmen covered under the Award. 3. Petitioners filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3832 of 1996, for a direction on the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central), Dhanbad ( R.L.C. for short) to identify them, claiming to be beneficiaries of the said Award, and for direction to the Management to reinstate them after such identification. The said writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order, on 18. 8.1997. Without going into the merits of the case of the petitioners and without accepting the correctness of the statements made in the writ application, I simply dispose of this application with a direction to the petitioners to file representation before the respondent No.1. If such representations are filed, the respondent No. 1 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after going into the merit of the claim of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the said order a representation was filed and the R.L.C. (C) Dhanbad by order dated 26.4.1999/4.5.1999 (Annexure-5) identified the petitioners to be genuine claimants and therefore they claim that BCCL should reinstatement them as per the said Award. He further relied on the judgment dated 17.11.2003, passed in W.P. ( L) No. 4888 of 2003. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that firstly the Management was not heard in the said writ petition. He further relied on the judgment dated 17.11.2003, passed in W.P. ( L) No. 4888 of 2003. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that firstly the Management was not heard in the said writ petition. Secondly the said letter of R.L.C. is not final and conclusive but only a prima facie finding has been recorded with liberty to the Management-BCCL to verify their genuineness and ensure to its satisfaction about the identity and bone fide of the petitioners. Thirdly, a detailed exercise was carried out in respect of the verification of claims and identity of 39 workmen by the office of the R.L.C. (C) Dhanbad wherein a detailed report (Annexure-B) was submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad (A.L.C. for short) on 16.6.1989 which was addressed to the R.L.C. but the R.L.C. while issuing the said letter Annexure-5 completely ignored the said report (Annexure-B), in which the claims of the petitioners was not found genuine, though the claims of several other claimants were found to be genuine. He referred to the said report. The case of petitioner No. 1 was considered as serial No. 25 at page 17. It was found that there were three claimants of the same name with different names of their father. The present petitioner No. 1 claimed to be S/o late Hira Prasad Singh, while three claimants who appeared before the A.L.C. were sons of Hira Mandal, Baleshwar Mahto and Sipahi Mahto. Thus none of the claimants appeared to be genuine workmen under the award. The case of petitioner No. 2 was considered as serial No. 18 at page 13 where two claimants appeared. Petitioner No. 2 did not submit any document to show that he worked with BCCL between the relevant period i.e. from 29.12.1979 to 3.1.1981. It was reported that actual worker N. Biswas was dead. The photographs of the two claimants were seen and it was said that none of them worked with BCCL. Thus it was found that none of the two claimants appeared to be genuine workmen under the Award. Petitioner No. 3 was also not found to be genuine beneficiary of the Award. During course of spot verification, the statement of Shri Jugal Prasad Singh, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Kotwa Patirampur (Saran) was recorded. The photograph of petitioner No. 3 was identified to be of one Shilnathnath Rai, S/o Bhagat Rai and not of Nagina Mahto. Petitioner No. 3 was also not found to be genuine beneficiary of the Award. During course of spot verification, the statement of Shri Jugal Prasad Singh, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Kotwa Patirampur (Saran) was recorded. The photograph of petitioner No. 3 was identified to be of one Shilnathnath Rai, S/o Bhagat Rai and not of Nagina Mahto. This position was confirmed by the Circle Officer, Sadar Chhapra also, which will appear from Annexure-A. He further submitted that if on the basis of doubtful identification, petitioners are reinstated, the officials of the Company may end-up in trouble. He further submitted that petitioners knew that they are not the real claimants, and therefore they did not take any action and after about six years from the issuance of Annexure-5 letter by RLC, they filed this writ petition. He also submitted that correct verification of identity is not practical after 25 years. He further submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2001 (7) SCC 1 , petitioners, being contract labour cannot claim absorption on the basis of the award, and that too after about 25 years. 6. It will appear from the letter of R.L.C., relied by the petitioners (Annexure-5) itself, that on the basis of the reports of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad and Monghyr, he found only prima facie, that the petitioners are the genuine awardees, and that the Management was asked to verify the genuineness of the said reports to further ensure satisfaction about the identity and bona fide of the petitioners. It is strange that the aforesaid report of A.L.C. dated 16.6.1989 ( Annexure-B) which was a detailed report about identification of all the 39 workmen, on the enquiry conducted by the office of R.L.C. itself, and Annexure-A were completely ignored by R.L.C. In the said reports, the claims of the petitioners were not found genuine. The said reports Annexures-A and B of the year 1989, has remained unchallenged, by the petitioners. It is not clear whether the Management was made party in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. No. 3832 of 1996 (R) filed by the petitioners, but it is clear that the Management was not heard. It further appears that the said reports ( Annexure-A and B) were not brought to the notice of this Court. It is not clear whether the Management was made party in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. No. 3832 of 1996 (R) filed by the petitioners, but it is clear that the Management was not heard. It further appears that the said reports ( Annexure-A and B) were not brought to the notice of this Court. Furthermore, the present writ petition was filed titter six years of issuance of Annexure-5, and there is no explanation at all for this delay. 7. Further, the said Judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 4888 of 2003 is of no help to the petitioners. In the said case, it was found that the R.L.C. in his two consecutives reports clearly found the petitioners therein to be genuine claimants. Moreover, even on the police verification made by the Management in that case, they were found to be genuine and in that circumstances, this Court directed their reinstatement but in the present case, it was found by the A.L.C., in the said enquiry reports (Annexure A&B) that the petitioners were not the genuine claimants. 8. Under the facts and circumstances, noticed above, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, pursuant to the said award, on the basis of Annexure-5 letter issued by R.L.C. Moreover, at this distance of time, i.e. after more than 25 years of the award, it will not be prudent to remit the matter for again verifying the identity of the petitioners. This dispute of identity cannot be allowed to continue any further. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.