JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the parties. 2. The Petitioner - Management of Murlidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL has challenged the Award dated 28.10.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 81/1993, whereby the learned Tribunal, in answer to the reference of the dispute referred to it, has passed the impugned Award directing the Management to reinstate and regularize all the concerned 134 workmen, whose names were mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of Reference, on the job in which they were working at the time of their disengagement or in the category as available and admissible to the workmen as per the provisions of N.C.W.A. subject to finding them medically fit but without any back wages. 3. In short, the case of the Union was that all the concerned workman had been working as Stone Cutters, Dyke Cutters and Coal Cutters at 20/21 Pits, Murlidih Colliery since 1976 continuously and they were engaged in permanent nature of job under the direct control and supervision of the Management. All the equipments for execution of job were being supplied by the Management but the Management was paying the wages to the workmen much below the rate of the rate of Wage Board Recommendations. A demand was made by the workmen for regularization of their service and payment of wages as per the law but the Management did not take any action in that regard rather got annoyed and stopped the workmen from their work from the year 1979. The workmen represented before the Management whereby, the Management directed the workmen to produce authentic documents in support of their deployment in colliery. In pursuance thereof, the concerned workmen produced the authentic documents before the Management and, thereafter, the Management informed the Union that the documents received from the Union will have to be verified from the signatories of the documents regarding its authentication and the workmen were directed to wait for sometimes but the Management did not take any action, and, thereafter, the workmen raised Industrial Disputes through the Union. 4. The conciliation having failed, the Central Government firstly refused to refer the dispute for adjudication but subsequently pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Tribunal. 4. The conciliation having failed, the Central Government firstly refused to refer the dispute for adjudication but subsequently pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Tribunal. The following dispute was referred for adjudication: “Whether the action of the management of 20/21 Pits, Murulidih Colliery, Mohuda Area No. II of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd., P.O. Mahuda, Dist. Dhanbad in denying regularization/ absorption of the services of S/Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey and 133 others, as per annexure, is justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled to? 5. On the other hand, the case of the Management was that there was no relationship of employer and workmen between the Management and the concerned workmen. They were never employed in the colliery under the Management at any point of time. If the concerned workmen have ever worked, they worked under the Contractor only for few days in a year intermittently. There was no scope for employment of 134 workers of the Contractor. 6. The Management denied that the concerned workers were working in the permanent nature of job under the direct control and supervision of the Management rather they worked under the control and supervision of Contractor as well as supervisory staff. At no point of time, the Management paid any wages to any of the concerned workmen and so, the question of paying less wages did not arise. 7. The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following questions for considerations: (i). Whether there was any relationship of employer - employee between the concerned workmen and the management? (ii). Whether the concerned workmen worked continuously in a job of permanent and perennial nature under the Management for more than 190/240 days in one calendar year? (iii). Whether the workmen were entitled for regularization in service as claimed by them? 8. From both the sides, oral as well as documentary evidence were adduced before the Tribunal and on consideration of the same, the Tribunal came to the following findings: (a). That all the concerned workmen continuously worked as stone cutter, dyke cutter etc. in Murlidih 20/21 Pits Colliery and in that course, they had put their attendance of more than 190/240 days in one calendar year. That all the concerned workmen continuously worked as stone cutter, dyke cutter etc. in Murlidih 20/21 Pits Colliery and in that course, they had put their attendance of more than 190/240 days in one calendar year. Though wages were paid, through the Contractors but for all practical purpose, they worked under the Management under its direct control and supervision. Further, the equipments for carrying out their works were supplied to the workmen by the Management. (b). The materials produced before the Tribunal established that the initial engagement of the workmen were made through a Contractor but in course of time, due to continuous working for years together, the relationship of employer - employee established between the management and workmen. 9. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal, by impugned Award, directed the Management to reinstate and regularize the concerned workmen in service without back wages. 10. So far as the back wages are concerned, it appears from the impugned Award that the Management, on the basis of the materials on record, has come to the findings that nothing was brought on record by the concerned workmen to show that after their disengagement, they remained idle and were not engaged in any gainful services elsewhere and, therefore, in such a situation, the learned Tribunal did not allow the claim of the workmen for back wages and ultimately directed the reinstatement/ regularization of the services of the concerned workmen without any back wages. 11. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred in directing regularization after lapse of about more than 25 years. He further submitted that the workmen were disengaged in the year 1979 whereas, the dispute was raised for the first time in the year 1987 and, therefore, the dispute itself was stale. He further submitted that the Management of B.C.C.L. is also suffering from the problem of over employment and therefore, the Company is not in a position to employ any person. 12. So far as the arguments of Mr. Mehta that the claim of the workmen was stale, I find that the workmen have explained the delay satisfactorily by adducing evidence that after their disengagement, they represented the Management in the year 1987. These documents were verified by the Management but thereafter, nothing was done by them and as such, in the year 1987, they raised Industrial Dispute. Mehta that the claim of the workmen was stale, I find that the workmen have explained the delay satisfactorily by adducing evidence that after their disengagement, they represented the Management in the year 1987. These documents were verified by the Management but thereafter, nothing was done by them and as such, in the year 1987, they raised Industrial Dispute. In this view of the matter, the claim of the workmen can not be said to be a stale one. 13. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. In such type of case, like the present one, where the Industrial Tribunal, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, has arrived at the findings on consideration of facts and materials and evidence on record in details, this Court, on reappreciation of evidence, cannot substitute its own finding unless it is shown that any of the findings of the Tribunal is based on apparent error of record and/or is perverse. 14. In the present case, nothing has been shown before me on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal has gone beyond the evidence and materials on record or that the findings arrived at by him is not based on the evidence and materials on record. Therefore, in such a situation, I find no reason to upset the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal who has painstakingly considered the case of both the sides as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and thereafter, has passed the impugned Award. 15. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed but without any costs. The interim order passed is hereby vacated.