JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The appellant being Employers in relation to the Management of Dudga Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment dated 19th August 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2385 of 1993 (R), whereby the appellants prayer for quashing the Award dated 26th February, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 93 of 1991, was dismissed. 2. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 namely the Workmen represented by Dudga Coal Washeries Workers Union arose pursuant to the demand of the workers for their departmentalization and regularization in service under the Management of the BCCL. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad vide reference Case No. 93 of 1991 on the following terms. Whether the 21 persons indicated in the annexure who were employed through contractors are workmen of the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. B.C.C.L. and whether the claim for their departmentalization and regularization in service with the said management is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to? The claim for regularization was made with reference to 21 workmen named in the list. 3. At the inquiry before the tribunal, both sides had submitted their written statements in support of their respective cases. While the Management took its defence that the claim of the workers was not tenable since there was no relation of employer and employee between the Management and the workers since the fact is that admittedly, the concerned workmen were not employed by the Management, nor any appointment letter was issued to them. Rather, the concerned workmen were employed directly under the contractor and they continued to remain in the employment of the contractor. 4. Denying the above grounds of the Management, the workmen had pointed out that though, they were initially appointed under the contractor, but essentially they used to work in Dugda Coal Washery owned by the BCCL and by virtue of the perennial nature of job, they had put in continuous service of more than 240 days in a year and have been working since 1981. 5. The issues, which were framed by the tribunal for determination on the pleadings of the rival parties, are, 1. 5. The issues, which were framed by the tribunal for determination on the pleadings of the rival parties, are, 1. whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the workmen, 2. whether the workmen had put in continuous service at the concerned washery of the BCCL, 3. whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned workmen are entitled for regularization under the Management of the BCCL. 6. Evidence on the above issues was adduced by the Management as well as by the workmen in course of inquiry before the tribunal. 7. Considering the evidences adduced by the parties, the tribunal recorded its findings that according to the admitted nature of work discharged by the workmen which comprised of the job of poking of raw coal hoppers, such job was perennial nature. The tribunal has also observed from the evidences adduced that the officers of the washery being the employees of the BCCL, used to supervise and control the work executed by these workmen by their regular presence at the works site. The tribunal had also observed from the evidences that though, works used to be executed through the contractors under whom the workmen were employed, but except two workers the remaining workers named in the list, had been rendering continuous service in the same nature of work ever since 1986 at the washery, though the contractors were different from time to time. Laying emphasis on the findings of fact that these workmen used to work under the direct control and supervision of the Management of the washery employed under the BCCL and drawing inference from the documents including the attendance register for several years, that the workmen had rendered continuous work for more than 150 days extending to 240 days is a year, the tribunal had recorded its finding that there was a relationship of employer and employees between the Management of the washery under the BCCL and the concerned workmen, and that the workmen since they had put it continuous service of more than 150 days extending to 240 days in a year since 1986, were legally entitled to claim departmentalization and regularization of their services under the BCCL. While arriving at such findings, the tribunal had also made reference to the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the Washery Management and the Union of Workers, adduced in evidence on behalf of the workmen which was made effective from 1.9.1982 and the provisions contained at Clause 8.1.1 under chapter-8 of the Memorandum which recorded that the industry shall not employ labour through contractor or engage contract labour on job of permanent and perennial nature. The tribunal had also referred to the record of notes of discussion (Ext. W-9) adduced in evidence, which was held with the coal washery workers Union on 27.4.1992 to draw inference and to arrive at the conclusion that poking of raw coal hoppers at the washery was a continuous perennial job, which is,, part of the plant production. On the basis of its findings of fact on the relevant issues, the tribunal passed its Award directing the Management to regularize the concerned workmen. Against the Award, the Management preferred CWJC No. 2385 of 1993 (R) before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 19th August 2002. Learned single Judge on considering the grounds which the appellant had advanced in support of his prayer for quashing the Award of the tribunal and while evaluating the impugned Award passed by the tribunal, had also gone through the evidences adduced by the parties before the tribunal in course of inquiry, on the issues framed by the tribunal for adjudicating the dispute. 8. On considering the evidence relating to the facts and issues, learned single Judge recorded the following observations: From the impugned award dated 26th February, 1993 passed in Reference No. 93/91 it will be evident that the learned Presiding Officer determined the claim taking into consideration the relevant facts and evidence as were placed by the parties. It appears that the Steel Authority of India Ltd. was the owner of the Washery. The workmen in question were working in Dugda Coal Wasery as contract labours of contractors since 1981. The Washery was subsequently transferred to M/s. B.C.C.L. w.e.f. 1st October, 1983. Even after transfer of the ownership of the Washery the workmen continued to perform work in the Washery. Though a number of contractors were changed but the workmen in question were engaged and continued to work since the initial engagement made in the year 1981. The Washery was subsequently transferred to M/s. B.C.C.L. w.e.f. 1st October, 1983. Even after transfer of the ownership of the Washery the workmen continued to perform work in the Washery. Though a number of contractors were changed but the workmen in question were engaged and continued to work since the initial engagement made in the year 1981. The Management witness No. 1 Shri Niranjan Kumar Ghosh stated that the coking work is being done by the workmen since 1982-83. The Management witness No. 2 stated that the coking system of coal came into practice since 1974-75. The attendance register (Ext. W-8) for the year 1986-87 shows that from January to September. 1987 the days of employment varied from 15 days to 25 days in a month. It came to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer that as per Section 25(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947 the workmen in question continuously worked in the calender years. For example, during October, 1986-87 Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh and Mahabir Thakur (SI. Nos. 1 & 2) completed 262 days and 281 days respectively apart from the leave granted to them. In the aforesaid background, if the learned Presiding Officer directed to regularize the services of 19 out of 21 workmen i.e. directed to appoint the workmen on regular basis, I find no reason to differ with the finding of facts. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. In the instant appeal, the appellant has raised virtually the same grounds as he had raised before the tribunal as also before the learned single Judge in the writ application which essentially constitute the main issues framed by the tribunal for determination and which involve findings of fact. No substantial question of law appears to have been raised in this appeal. The issues relating to the facts have been decided by the tribunal and confirmed by the learned single Judge. As such, fresh consideration of the facts cannot be undertaken, not is called for in this appeal. For the reasons discussed above, there appears no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. M.Y. Eqbal, J. 10. I agree.