Judgment In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 22.12.2000 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 50/91 whereby learned Tribunal has directed the Management to regularize the services of the workmen w.e.f 29.4.1991 holding them entitled for claiming wages of piece rated workmen of appropriate category from the date of award. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned award of regularization is beyond the jurisdiction of learned Tribunal, as has been held by the Supreme Court in various decisions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. A. S. Pillai & Ors. [ (2010) 13 S.C.C 448 ], Union of India and Anr. Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. [ (2011) 7 S.C.C 397 ] and Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union (2) [ (2011) 4 S.C.C 200 ]. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the concerned workmen. It has been stated, inter alia, that in the instant case, the dispute was not only referred to learned Tribunal regarding refusal of reinstatement, the same was also against the refusal of regularization. 'Whether refusal of regularization was justified' was also one of the terms of the reference. Learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidences on record and has answered the reference against the Management. 5. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen-respondents, submitted that the cases referred to and relied on by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case, there was clear assurance by the Management to regularize the concerned workmen and an agreement to that respect was signed by the Management as well as by the concerned workmen assuring regularization of the concerned workmen, which was not complied with by the Management. Learned Tribunal has discussed all the evidences and considered the said agreement and has rightly held that the demand of the concerned workmen for regularization by the Management is wholly justified. It has been submitted that the impugned award is well considered, valid and legal and warrants no interference by this Court. 6. Learned Tribunal has discussed all the evidences and considered the said agreement and has rightly held that the demand of the concerned workmen for regularization by the Management is wholly justified. It has been submitted that the impugned award is well considered, valid and legal and warrants no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the materials on record, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the concerned workmen-respondents. 7. It is an admitted case that the concerned workmen were the casual wagon loaders at Rajhara Colliery. Loading of coal in wagons / trucks by the contract labourers is in prohibited category. All the concerned workmen were working under the contractor Surat Pandey prior to 1983 as Contract Labour. They were doing job of wagon loading since before the colliery was nationalized w.e.f 1.8.1973 under Non-cocking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. They continued working as such even after nationalization of the colliery. But even after a long lapse of time, they were not regularized in the job. That gave rise to a peaceful agitation demanding regularization by the concerned workmen. That led to an industrial dispute and complain by Trade Unions before the A.L.C(C), Hazaribagh. The dispute was conciliated by him. A settlement dated 13.8.1983 was arrived at in which it was agreed by the Management that all 311 wagon loaders will be taken on the roll of the Company w.e.f 1.9.1983 as casual wagon loaders. Pursuant to the said agreement, the concerned workmen were enrolled as casual wagon loaders by the Management. According to the sponsoring union, the work is of permanent nature and each and every concerned workman had put more than 240 days' attendance in a calendar year. In spite of the same, they were kept as casual wagon loaders. Benefits of permanent wagon loaders was not given to them. 8. The trade unions raised issue of regularization of the concerned workmen as permanent workmen. Subsequently, there was a settlement dated 6.9.1995 between the Management and the union leaders. In the said settlement, it was agreed that 311 workmen, who were taken on roll pursuant to the settlement dated 13.8.1983, shall be regularized and the dispute of 101 workmen, who were also claiming settlement, shall be referred for arbitration to Bindeshwari Dubey and Chaturanand Mishra. Subsequently, there was a settlement dated 6.9.1995 between the Management and the union leaders. In the said settlement, it was agreed that 311 workmen, who were taken on roll pursuant to the settlement dated 13.8.1983, shall be regularized and the dispute of 101 workmen, who were also claiming settlement, shall be referred for arbitration to Bindeshwari Dubey and Chaturanand Mishra. As per the settlement, medical test was also conducted, but out of 311 workmen, only 283 workmen were found medically fit. The Management, however, decided to prepare two lists, one for those 283 workmen and another for 245 casual wagon loaders, who were not among 311. 9. But despite the said term of settlement, the Management did not issue orders for regularization, that led to the instant reference to learned Tribunal. 10. Both the parties appeared before learned Tribunal. The parties also adduced their evidences. 11. After thorough discussion and consideration of all the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record, learned Tribunal came to the finding that the concerned workmen have been working as casual wagon loaders since 1.9.1983 and the Management had already entered into an agreement for regularization of the concerned workmen, but they were not regularized till date, which is not justified. Leaned Tribunal directed the Management to regularize the concerned workmen as permanent workmen w.e.f 29.4.1991. However, considering that Rajhara Colliery is running in loss, learned Tribunal did not allow their prayer of back wages. 12. The impugned award of learned Tribunal is well reasoned and based on due consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record. I find no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned award. 13. The decisions of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases referred to and relied upon by the petitioner are based on different fact situation. In none of the aforesaid cases, there was any assurance / agreement for regularization by the Management. The said decisions are, thus, not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 14. I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned award . 15. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.