JUDGMENT : Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the award dated 29th March, 2004, whereby Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad has answered the Reference Case No. 20 of 1997 against the workmen holding that the demand of Union for regularization of Sri Ramesh Naik and 59 others, is not justified and they are not entitled to get any relief. The award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the workmen continuously worked for nine years under the management and are entitled to be regularized, but the management arbitrarily refused the existence of the concerned workmen. The dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal who erroneously answered the award against the Petitioner. 2. According to the management, the Company is a public sector undertaking. It has to follow the norms and procedure laid down by rules and law. For the purpose of recruitment, applications are invited from the eligible candidates through Employment Exchange and selection is made through the Selection Committee. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the workmen are recruited on the roll of the company. The appointment letters are issued and identity cards are given to such employees, pay slips are also given to them for drawing wages from the company. There is no other mode of recruitment of workmen in the company. The concerned workmen were never appointed by the management and as such there is no question of their regularization. It has been further stated that the Rajrappa Washery, where the concerned workmen claimed to have worked, is situated within the boundary walls with the security personnel at the gate. In course of maintenance of washery, slurries are removed by mechanical means and water flow is recirculated by special pumps filled in the circuit for the purpose of preventing water flow outside the premises. There is no scope for employing manual labour for removal of slurry from the slurry ponds. However, sometimes in case of break down in the system or mechanical failure the pond inside the washery became full causing over flow of water outside the factory and some slurry settled down outside the factory premises along the drain. There is no scope for employing manual labour for removal of slurry from the slurry ponds. However, sometimes in case of break down in the system or mechanical failure the pond inside the washery became full causing over flow of water outside the factory and some slurry settled down outside the factory premises along the drain. For the purpose of removal of that slurry and to make the drain clean, one Contractor was engaged through tender for cleaning of temporary drain and the natural pond created clue to over flow of water. That is one time job and for that purpose the labourers of the Contractor who was given the work, put their claim for regularization under the management for having worked as Contractor's workers for removal and cleaning of slurry outside the factory premises. That dispute was referred in the different reference cases The concerned persons, who have raised the dispute, never worked even as Contractor's labourers. Their claim is imaginary and is liable to be rejected. 3. Both the parties led their evidences and were thoroughly heard. Learned Tribunal considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and came to the conclusion that the concerned workmen failed to substantiate their claim that they were engaged by the management in Rajrappa Washery for removing slurry from the period 1991 to March 1999. Learned Tribunal answered the reference in negative and held that the workmen are not entitled to get any relief. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the award is perverse and illegal and is a result of non application of mind on the relevant aspects. Learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the concerned workmen were engaged for the work for a long period i.e. from 1991 to March 1999 and they had worked for 240 days in each year. The continuity of engagement of concerned workmen goes to show the permanent nature of job. But they were not regularised. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that learned Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspect's and after due discussion of the materials on record, has come to the finding that the sponsoring Union failed to produce cogent evidence to prove that concerned workmen had worked under the management continuously for more than 240 days in each year. Two attendance sheets - Ext. Two attendance sheets - Ext. W-1 and W-1/1 produced by the concerned workmen, have also been considered by learned Tribunal and the same have not been accepted as sufficient proof to establish the claim of the sponsoring Union. 6. After hearing learned Counsel and going through the facts and materials on record as well as the impugned award, I find no illegality or infirmity in the award. The concerned workmen, claimed to have worked continuously from 1991 to March 1999 under the management. In support of their claims they have filed photo copies of the attendance sheets marked as Exts. W-1 and W-1/1. Learned Tribunal considered the said document. Though they claimed that they worked under the management through the contractors, they failed to establish the same. Learned Tribunal found that the said documents do not support the said claim. They failed to prove and disclose the name of the Labour Officer, who prepared the said attendance sheets. The Labour Officer was not examined by the workmen. One witness, examined as WW-1, has also made contradictory statements. Learned Tribunal has, thus, come to the conclusion that the sponsoring Union have failed to substantiate the claim of the workmen and has accordingly answered the workmen for not entitled to get any relief. The finding of the Tribunal is supported by sound and speaking reasons. I find no ground made out to interfere with same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.