JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner - Management has filed this writ petition for quashing the Award dated 1.9.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 64 of 1995 holding that the workmen were entitled for regularization and directing the Management to reinstate 81 workmen except the workman-Jalandra Chouhan at serial No. 33. 3. The following dispute was referred for adjudication by order dated 16.6.1995: Whether the demand of the Union for regularization/employment by the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. of Sh. Rama Ashish Paswan and 81 other (as per list annexed), members of a registered Co-operative society namely Kustore Shramik Sahyog Samiti Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief are these concerned workmen entitled to? 4. The case of the workmen in short was as follows. They were members of Kustore Shramik Sahayog Samiti Ltd., a registered Co-operative Society (hereinafter to be referred as the Society) but they were engaged and they worked under the control and supervision of the Management at different time rated jobs underground and on the surface of the colliery in the month of April, 1989 and continued to work till the end of January, 1992. They were issued implements and their attendances were also marked by the Management. They were also doing prohibited category of work which were of permanent and perennial in nature. Therefore, they claimed regularization. 5. The case of the Management in short is that the workmen were the members of the Society and they worked during the period 1989-92 as such. They were not under the supervision and control of the Management and there was no employer- employee relationship between them and the Management. They never worked on permanent and perennial nature of work. Society was assigned some contractual job of very short duration and purely temporary in nature. The work was supervised by the Society and payments were made to the Society through cheque. The workmen were never paid by the Management. 6. Mr. Mehta appearing for the Management submitted as follow. In view of paragraph 125 of the judgment Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers a finding was necessary whether the engagement of the workman through the Society was ruse/camouflage and was to evade compliance with various legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. Mr. Mehta appearing for the Management submitted as follow. In view of paragraph 125 of the judgment Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers a finding was necessary whether the engagement of the workman through the Society was ruse/camouflage and was to evade compliance with various legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. In absence of such finding, the Tribunal could not direct the Management to regularize or reinstate the workmen. The Union could not discharge its onus to prove that there was any notification prohibiting the nature of works in question. Admittedly different numbers of workmen were requisitioned from the Society as per the requirement and the payment was made to the Society by cheque. The work orders were initially issued to the Society and only because subsequently requisitions were sent directly it could not be held that that the workmen were the employees of the Management. Referring to paragraphs 17 and 26 of the writ petition, and the reply in paragraph 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit, he submitted that it is not known, why the Union did not press the petition filed on 23.9.1996, for calling for the documents from the Management. Accordingly no order was passed thereon, but even then by drawing adverse inference, the Tribunal held that the workmen worked for more than 190/240 days in underground/surface of mine, in a calendar year. Assuming for the sake of argument that the workmen were working directly under the Management admittedly they worked on time rated basis between April, 1989 to January, 1992 only intermittently and therefore, in view of 2006 (4) SCC 1 Secretary, State of Kernataka v. Uma Devi, this Court may not uphold the Award of regularization now. In view of Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority the Tribunal could not go beyond the reference and hold that there was violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. In view of Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., even for violation of Section 25F, regularization or reinstatement could not be ordered. 7. Mr. S.N. Das appearing for workmen, submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal as the same is based on materials available on record. He further relied on Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. 8. 7. Mr. S.N. Das appearing for workmen, submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal as the same is based on materials available on record. He further relied on Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. 8. I find force in the submissions of Mr. Mehta that the Award cannot be sustained. The Tribunal held- ...The real fact on lifting the veil appears to be that initially the concerned persons were engaged as contract labourers under a labour Co-operative society in which all the concerned persons were members of that society and they all used to do work under the banner of Co-operative Society including the Secretary. Therefore, the management directly started requisitioning the services of the workmen on day to day basis as per the volume of work and requirement.... The Tribunal did not record a finding that the engagement of the workmen through the Society, was a ruse/Camouflage. It appears that a petition was filed by the Union, for calling for certain documents from the Management, but it is not known, why the union did not obtain any order on the same, and therefore the Tribunal could not draw adverse inference against the Management and hold that the workmen worked for more than 190/240 days into underground/surface of the mine in a calendar year. It has come on the record that different numbers of workmen were requisitioned through the Society on different occasions, and payments were made by cheque to the Society. Only because initially such requisitions were made to the Society and afterwards, directly to the workmen, the Tribunal could not held that they were working directly under the Management. The onus was on the Union to prove that the workmen were engaged in any prohibited category of work, which it failed to prove. The finding that there was violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act was clearly beyond the reference, which is bad in view of the judgment of Mahendra L. Jain (Supra). Even if it is assumed that the workmen were temporary employees of the Management and there was violation of Section 25F, the Tribunal could not direct regularization. The finding that there was violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act was clearly beyond the reference, which is bad in view of the judgment of Mahendra L. Jain (Supra). Even if it is assumed that the workmen were temporary employees of the Management and there was violation of Section 25F, the Tribunal could not direct regularization. In the case of Gangadhar Pillai (Supra), it has been inter alia, held that- Only because an employee had been engaged temporarily or for a number of years, it cannot be held that that such engagement was made for depriving him from the status of permanent employee, and the onus is on the workmen to prove such fact; and that only because the workmen completed 240 days, and there is violation of Section 25F, they do not become entitled to regularization. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself in making the observations and recording the findings noticed above. The approach in the case of Bhurkunda Colliery (Supra) was not approved in paragraph 39 of the Constitution Bench Judgment of Uma Devi (Supra). 9. After considering the matter from all possible angles, I am of the view of that the impugned Award cannot be upheld and accordingly, it is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, no costs.