JUDGMENT 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. A labour dispute was referred. to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad vide order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed by the Central Government. The referred dispute is. Whether the action of the management of Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL in not departmentalizing/regularizing Shri Ram Bilash Ram and 24 others (as per list enclosed) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to? 3. The contention of the workmen was that they were employed directly for the job of drivage in stone, stone cutting, drivage through fault in stone coal cutting, dressing in coal and stone, reef supporting, line packing, fall cleaning and other tyndal jobs. The jobs performed by the concerned workmen were permanent and perennial nature and prohibited category of jobs under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act; whereas the Appellant's contention before the labour court was that they were not the employees of Appellant but were employed by a Society, namely, Pragatisil Sharmik Sahayog Samiti and, therefore, in want of relationship of employer and employee, no regularization could have been claimed by the workmen. The labour court vide award dated 30th September, 2008 rejected the Appellant's Contention and held that the workers were doing the job of permanent and perennial nature since 1989. Other persons have been regularized by the Management but the present workmen have not been regularized. Being aggrieved against the said award dated 30th September, 2009, the Management preferred W.P.(L) No. 1578 of 2010, which has been dismissed vide order dated 22nd June, 2010 and hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to assail the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the relationship of 'employer' and 'employee'. But we are of the considered opinion that the finding is based on appreciation of the evidence, which is apparent from the facts mentioned in para-9 of the impugned award, wherein the documentary evidences have been considered by the Tribunal and it was found that not only those documents proved the relationship of employer and employee but the Management also used to verify the attendance of the workmen by maintaining Form. No. C, register of the Management itself. The Tribunal also considered one award passed in Reference Case No. 104 of 1990. No. C, register of the Management itself. The Tribunal also considered one award passed in Reference Case No. 104 of 1990. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in not re-appreciating the evidence and affirmed the finding of fact, which is based on evidence. 5. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the same Management used to engage the employee through another contractor namely, M/s Azad Shramik Sahayog Samiti, which is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union v. Employers in relation to the Management of Balihari Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. in Civil Appeal Mo. 3962 of 2006 vide order dated 18th November, 2009, wherein also defence was taken that the workmen were engaged through M/s Azad Shramik Sahayog Samiti and the said plea was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been taken by the Appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant tried to evolve a devise by creating Samitis, so as to deprive the legitimate claim of the workmen. 6. In the present matter, admittedly the Appellant did not place on record the contract under which the work may have been given to Samiti and failed to prove that workmen were employees of the Samiti and also did not produce the constitution or bylaws of the said Samiti and, therefore, on this count also adverse inference should have been drawn by the labour court that, if those documents would have been produced, they would have destroyed the case of the Appellant. 7. Be that as it may, we do not find any illegality in the impugned award as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, since the employees were out of the roll for more than a decade and they did not do any. job in the employment of the Appellant and there is no material on record on the basis of which we can gather that workmen were not under any gainful employment during these entire period of more than one decade, the award of back wages of the workmen cannot be justified. 8. In the case of Workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union also the back wages Were denied to the workmen. 8. In the case of Workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union also the back wages Were denied to the workmen. Following the ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the workmen would not be entitled to the back wages. The Respondents are directed to regularize them in service within a period of one month from today, if they have not been regularized yet.