Order Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. In spite of the service of notice, nobody has appeared for the respondent. 3. The prayer is for quashing the award dated 27.12.2002 of the Industrial Tribunal passed in a Reference Case No. 110 of 1991 by which the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the concerned workmen, and has held that the concerned workmen are entitled to be regularized. 4. The facts in short are that the management of B.C.C.L. had a residential colony called Amtal Colony in which the employees of the rope-way division used to reside and for the supply of drinking wager to the residents ,of the said colony, the service of the concerned workmen were taken on payment of 50 paise per 'bhar'. The payment was to be made by the management. 5. The concerned workmen namely Anil Pramanik and Arun Bhattacharjee were supplying the water by 'bhar'. Subsequently, the colony itself was closed, and then these two workmen were discontinued. 6. The concerned workmen raised industrial dispute through their union and ultimately the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication by the Government:- "Whether the demand of the Union for regularisation of Shri Anil Pramanik and Shri Arun Bhattacharjee, supplying water at Station No. 10 Amtal 'D' Ropeways of M/s BCCL as Category-I Mazdoor is justified? If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled?" 7. The case of the concerned workmen is that the job which they were performing was of permanent nature of job, and they put in 240 days in each calendar year and further they worked under the direct control and supervision of the management of B.C.C.L., and therefore, they were entitled to be regularized in their services. 8. On the other hand, the case of the management is that the dispute referred to was not at all an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no relationship of employer-employee between the Management of B.C.C.L. and the concerned 'workmen, since they are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no relationship of employer-employee between the Management of B.C.C.L. and the concerned 'workmen, since they are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further case of the petitioner is that the concerned workmen used to supply water through 'bhar' at the rate of 50 paise per 'bhar' to the residents of the colony according to their need but that job was not of a permanent nature. The management as well as the workmen adduced evidence in support of their respective cases before the Tribunal, and thereafter, by the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the demand of the union for regularization of the concerned workmen namely Anil Pramanik and Arun Bhattacharjee as suppliers of water was justified and they deserved to be regularized. 9. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the job for supplying drinking water by 'bhar' to the residents of the colony was not a permanent and perennial nature of job and further that the relationship of employee and employer did not exist between the concerned workmen and the management. It is further submitted that the colony itself was subsequently closed, and thereafter, of the concerned workmen were disengaged, since the job of supplying drinking water itself was of temporary nature. He further submitted that for supplying the drinking water by "bhar" cannot be said to be a job of permanent and perennial nature, and submitted that this very point has been decided by a Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2006(3) J.L.J.R. 535 and has submitted that in exact similar nature of the case whereby the workmen used to supply drinking water to the residents of the colony of C.C.L., this Court set aside the award of the Tribunal whereby the management was directed to regularized the services of the water suppliers. 10. In the present case from the impugned award it appears that the Tribunal has held that since the workmen supplied drinking water to the residents of the colony for a number of years, and therefore; the job was of permanent nature and they were under the direct control and supervision of the management. 11. 10. In the present case from the impugned award it appears that the Tribunal has held that since the workmen supplied drinking water to the residents of the colony for a number of years, and therefore; the job was of permanent nature and they were under the direct control and supervision of the management. 11. In my view, the findings of the Tribunal is not sustainable in view of the fact that simply because the concerned workmen used to supply water by 'bhar' in the colony of the management and used to receive wages on piece-rated basis, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that they were working under the direct control and supervision of the management. Therefore, in my view, no relationship of employer and employee existed between the concerned workmen and the management. The job of water supplier to the residents of the colony cannot be said to be of permanent and perennial nature of job, since whenever there was need for supply of water the concerned workmen used to supply drinking water, therefore, the job performed by the workmen were on need basis which cannot be said to be perennial or permanent nature of job. 12. Thus, I hold that neither there was relationship of employer and employee between the management and the concerned workmen nor the dispute raised was an industrial dispute. Even the nature of job performed .by the concerned workmen was not of permanent nature, and therefore, the Tribunal committed error in directing regularisation of the services of the concerned workmen. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned award dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, is, hereby, set aside. No order as to costs.