JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The award dated 25.10.2000(Annexure-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in reference case no. 2 of 1993 is under challenge by the management- petitioner whereby while answering the reference in favour of the workmen, learned Tribunal has held that the action of the management in not regularizing Sri Kartik Mahto and 160 other in the permanent employment of the management is not justified and the concerned persons named above are entitled for regularization within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing which the concerned persons shall be entitled for wages from the date of this award as prescribed under N.C.W.A with interest at the rate of 12 ½ % per annum. 3. The reference in the instant case was made by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 10 2A(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication before the Central Tribunal in the following terms: “Whether the action of the management of Rajrappa Coal Washery of M/S C.C.L. in not regularizing S/Shri Kartik Mahato and 160 other workers is legal and justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?” 4. It is the case of the petitioner- management that the Union of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Rajrappa Branch sponsored the dispute alleging that Kartik Mahato and 160 persons named in the order of reference has been continuously working under the direct control and supervision of Rajrappa Coal Washiery of M/s. C.C.L. in the job of the slurry cleaning since long which is permanent nature of job and having attendance of more than 240 days in each calender year. Such job have been prohibited by the notification of the Central Government dated 11.12.1990 issued under the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as such the workmen were entitled for regularization, w.e.f 11.12.1990. 5. It is the case of the management- petitioner that on notice it appeared and filed its written statement inter-alia taking a number of pleas i.e. the instant dispute is not a valid industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the concerned workmen are not members of the sponsored union, no employer- employee relationship exists or existed between the management; and the concerned persons are strangers to the management. They also took plea that coal washery being a factory under the Factories Act, 1948, does not come under the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952. The Central Government is not appropriate Court for making a reference. On merits the management took plea that the concerned Rajrappa Coal Washery is engaged in washing raw coal and to beneficiate the same and produce clean coal suitable for the use in the Steel Plants. In the process of washing of the said coals some fluid with fine particles of sand and other coal rejects called tailings and rejects flows out of the washery, which is referred to as the slurry which gets collected outside the washery premises. According to the management the job of removal of slurry was entrusted on a contract basis to a cooperative society i.e. Asanghathit Sharmik Sahayog Samiti Ltd. Rajrappa Coal Washery, which is registered under the Cooperative Society Act. It is further stated that for the period from 11.4.1988 to 26.2.1991 the said cooperative society was entrusted with the job of slurry removal. However after issuance of the notification prohibiting removal of slurry through contract labour under Section 10 of the C.L.R. A Act, 1970, the management of Rajrappa Coal Washery had stopped the contract system for removal of slurry. The management also took plea that few persons named in the reference may have worked under the contractor i.e. the Co-operative Society but all of them have not worked and majority of them are job seekers. Therefore, the management is not obliged to regularize them or absorb them as permanent employee. The concerned Industrial Tribunal, therefore, framed points for consideration in the reference; (i) Had the concerned persons Kartik Mahato and 160 others as per list attached in the reference order been working as slurry removal mazdoors which is a job in which contractual labour is prohibited? If so, are they entitled for absorption in the permanent employment of the management? (ii) Is the reference bad and the Central government incompetent to refer the dispute? 6. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has however chosen not to press the invalidity of the reference on the ground that Central Government is incompetent to refer this. (ii) Is the reference bad and the Central government incompetent to refer the dispute? 6. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has however chosen not to press the invalidity of the reference on the ground that Central Government is incompetent to refer this. However, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award inter-alia on the following grounds:- (a) That the Industrial Tribunal has passed the order of award for regularization of the concerned workmen following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Air India Statutory Corporation Vrs. United Labour Union reported in 1997 (Labour Industrial Cases) 365 and 1997(9) SCC 377 , which however has been specifically overruled by the constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in 2001(7) SCC Page 1. According to the counsel for the petitioner the impugned award has been rendered on 25.10.2000 before the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the direction issued by the Industrial Adjudicator has not been given effect to and has not become final and as such under the specific ratio laid down at para 125 (4), the instant award is therefore, liable to be set aside being in teeth of the specific law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Constitution Bench Judgment . (b) The petitioner has also assailed the impugned award on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal was required to come to a specific findings in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment that whether the contract said to be existing between the management and the contractor was genuine or not or a mere camouflage and consequent upon such determination, Industrial Tribunal was required to follow the consequences which are laid down in sub para 5 and 6 of para 125 of the said judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (Supra), which has not been done in the instant case. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (Supra), which has not been done in the instant case. (c) Counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the award on the ground that in the instant case, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold against the management that it is liable to regularize the services of 161 workmen without any evidence being produced by the working except one witness examined i.e. Brij Lal Mahto. The workmen were liable to adduce evidence regarding the period of continuity of service, claimed by them under the management for seeking regularization from the date in December 1990 itself onwards, which evidence is lacking in the instant case. (d) The management has also assailed the impugned award on the ground that in the instant case admittedly the cooperative society, through which the workmen have claimed to be working, was under a license by the appropriate authority under the Act of 1970 itself till the notification was issued under Section 10 of the Act of 1970 . (e) Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to buttress his aforesaid contentions by stating that the Industrial Tribunal has erroneously placed the burden of proof upon the management though it was the workmen on whose instance the reference was made and who were liable to establish their case of regularization of not few but 161 workmen. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award stating that even in case where a workman is said to have worked for 240 days in calender year, automatic regularization is not the rule. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Union of India & others Vrs. Vartak Labour Union(2) reported in 2011(4) SCC 200 and Accounts Officer (A&I), APSRTC and others Vrs. K.V. Ramana & others reported in 2007(2) SCC 324 ; Mahboob Deepak Vrs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & another reported in 2008(1) SCC575; Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Vrs. United Traders Congress & another reported in 2008(2) SCC 552 . Counsel for the petitioner submitted on the basis of the aforesaid judgments even in cases of long period of engagement, regularization is not the rule. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. & others Vrs. United Traders Congress & another reported in 2008(2) SCC 552 . Counsel for the petitioner submitted on the basis of the aforesaid judgments even in cases of long period of engagement, regularization is not the rule. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. & others Vrs. G. Srinivas Reddy & others reported in 2006(3) SCC 674 to buttress his contention that in such a case where the industrial reference has been made on the question whether the workmen are entitled for regularization on the basis of their perennial engagement through a contractor prohibited under the notification of the Act of 1970, it is the requirement of the Industrial Adjudicator in terms of the constitution bench judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (Supra) to first determine whether the contract is genuine or a mere ruse or camouflage and then to act in terms of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said constitution bench judgment. Counsel for the petitioner has therefore assailed the impugned award inter-alia on the aforesaid ground by submitting that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed serious error of law and facts which requires interference by this Court under the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents- workmen while taking this Court to the findings rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award itself have submitted that the nature of job performed by the workmen i.e. removal of slurry is a perennial nature of job which were performed by the workmen in question through a contractor under the work orders issued by the management and in teeth of the prohibition vide notification issued on 11.12.1990 under Section 10 of the Act of 1970. It has been further submitted on their behalf that the management has admitted that the work of sluury removal was being conducted through a contractor namely Asanghathit Sharmik Sahayog Samiti Ltd. and they have also admitted on their behalf that at least few persons named in the reference order were working for removal of slurry under the said contractor. It has been further submitted on their behalf that the management has admitted that the work of sluury removal was being conducted through a contractor namely Asanghathit Sharmik Sahayog Samiti Ltd. and they have also admitted on their behalf that at least few persons named in the reference order were working for removal of slurry under the said contractor. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has come to a finding that the management has not produced any muster roll register cum payment sheet to prove that only a fraction of persons named in the reference order have worked under the contractor and bulk of them are persons who have never worked under them. On the other hand workmen had filed xerox copy of the muster roll register cum payment sheet to show that all the persons had worked in the job of slurry removal and loading of slurry. Counsel for the workmen also submits that the Industrial Tribunal has also took into account the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Hazaribag dated 10.7.1995 that on inspection of the establishment of the said Samiti on 30.6.1995,it was found that the job of actual removal of slurry was being done despite prohibition notification dated 11.12.1990 issued by the Central Government even after 5 years of the said notification. Counsel for the workmen also submits that the work order issued by the management to the cooperative society were also produced as Ext. M-21, which is dated 26.2.1991 where under work was issued to the contractor for removal of slurry. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal after taking into account the evidences of the workmen, i.e. witness no. 1, Brij Lal Mahato, muster roll register cum payment sheet(Ext. W1), notice of the A.L.C., Hazaribag and own documents of the management (Ext. M-21) proceeded to hold that even after December, 1990 the job of slurry removal was entrusted to the contractor despite the prohibition notification issued by the Central Government. In these circumstances, on arriving at a finding that the management had been getting job done through contractor despite prohibition notification of December 1990, the learned Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) and directed the workmen in question to be regularized in the services of the management as it was under the statutory obligation to do so. Counsel for the respondent-workmen has, therefore, submitted that findings of the learned Tribunal are based upon adequate and sufficient evidence and, therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere in the findings of fact as it is not a case of no evidence or any perversity. 8. Counsel for the respondents-workmen has relied upon judgment in the case of Union of India and others Vrs. Janardhan Debanath & another reported in 2004 (4) SCC 245 , in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radha Krishnan & others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 and in the case of Calcutta Port Sharmik Union Vrs. The Calcutta River Transport Association & others reported in AIR 1988 SCC 2168 in support of her submission. Counsel for the respondents-workmen has also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the matter of industrial adjudication, observed that the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review should not be guided by hyper-technicalities in findings of facts arrived by the Industrial Tribunal in question. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chach Nehru Vidyapith Vrs. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cum Assistant Labour Commissioner reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 121 . Counsel for the respondents-workmen has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Their Workman Represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Vrs. Employers in Relation to the management of Balihari Colliery of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2006 vide judgment dated 18.11.2009. According to the workmen similar reference for regularization of services of 76 workmen were made before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad, which were answered in favour of the workmen. When the said matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the finding of fact of the Industrial Tribunal that the appellant-workmen are doing the work of permanent and perennial nature for more than 6/7 years held that the contract was a mere camouflage and directed reinstatement of the workmen within stipulated period, however, without any back wages. 9. 9. Counsel for the workmen, therefore, submits that the instant case is similar to the fact of the aforesaid case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2006. Based upon these arguments learned counsel for the respondents-workmen has, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the impugned award does not suffers from any infirmity and is not required to be interfered. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-workmen has also submitted that though the mere word 'camouflage' may not have been used in the impugned award but the finding rendered in it is adequate to show that the management has indulged in camouflage through contractor to award the work of perennial nature to be taken from the workmen in question, hence, the workmen were entitled for regularization in service as has been done by the impugned award. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned award. The Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference in the impugned award by stating at para 9 that the question is, if the employer gets a job prohibited under Section 10 of the C.L.R.A. Act, 1970 done through contractor then are the contractor's labour entitled for absorption as the permanent employment of the management? Learned Tribunal has thereafter, proceeded to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Vrs. United Labour Union (Supra) to hold that the principal employer i.e. the management after the issuance of the notification prohibiting engagement of the contract labour through employment of a contractor for slurry removal job, which is perennial in nature is obliged to absorb all the contract labours. Learned Tribunal, has accordingly, proceeded to hold that since the workmen were doing the job of slurry removal, they are entitled for absorption after prohibition of the said job through contract labour and in the present case the sponsoring Union has been able to prove that all the persons were working for slurry removal even after prohibition by the notification dated 11.12.1990 under Section 10 of the Act of 1970. As such they are entitled for regularization w.e.f. 11.12.1990. As such they are entitled for regularization w.e.f. 11.12.1990. However, it is not in dispute that the instant award has not been given effect as the management has not regularized the workmen in question pursuant to the instant award and the direction has not become final either. In these circumstances, therefore it is apposite to quote the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, specifically para 125 and 126 thereof :- “Para 125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:- (1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government; (b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company / undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government. (2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government: (1) after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and (2) having regard to (i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question, and (ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10; (b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9-12-1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the said notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented. (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. (4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India case shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final. (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder. (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications. Para 126. We have used the expression “industrial adjudicator” by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribuna1/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review”. (underline are not part of original text and are provided to add emphasis) 11. At the outset the reference to sub para 4 of para 125 would show that the judgment in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Vrs. (underline are not part of original text and are provided to add emphasis) 11. At the outset the reference to sub para 4 of para 125 would show that the judgment in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Vrs. United Labour Union has been overruled prospectively and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that any direction issued by any Industrial Adjudicator or any Court including the High Court for absorption of contract labours following the judgment of Air India Statutory Corporation Vrs. United Labour Union shall hold good and that same shall not be set aside , altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in the cases where such a direction has been given effect to and has become final. In the present case since the direction of the Industrial Tribunal has not been given effect to, therefore the law which has been declared by the Constitution Bench in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers in para 5 and 6, thereof become relevant for adjudication of the instant writ petition where the impugned award passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is under question. 12. In sub para 5 of para 125 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. Judgment(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the C.L.R.A Act, 1970 prohibiting employment through contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before an Industrial Adjudicator by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. It has further been held that if the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 thereunder. 13. 13. In what is just indicated here in above, it is therefore necessary to also find out as to what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 125(6). In the instant sub para the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, 1970 in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process/or other work of the establishment, the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to be erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise, found suitable and if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications. 14. From what has been stated hereinabove in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, it is apparent that in a case of reference made seeking regularization of workmen engaged through the contract labour even after prohibition notification issued by the Central Government on 11.12.1990, the Industrial Adjudicator had to come to specific finding as to whether the management had entrusted the supply of contract labour for work of any establishment under a genuine contract or is mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance with various legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder. If it was found to be mere camouflage, in that case the Industrial Adjudicator should direct regularization of the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned which however has been made subject to the conditions laid down in sub para-6 of Para-125 of the said judgment, which have also been quoted hereinabove. 15. From the facts, brought on record in the instant case and what has been argued on behalf of the rival parties, it is apparent that in the instant case the reference was made seeking determination on the question of regularization of 161 workmen on the ground that they were engaged through a contractor by the management in question despite the prohibition notification issued in the month of December, 1990 by the Central Government. What has been found upon perusal of the impugned award by this Court is that amongst 160 workmen only one witness has been examined on behalf of the sponsoring Union to lead evidence that 161 workmen had been engaged by the management through the contractor in question. Further the impugned award directs engagement and regularization of the workmen from the period 11.12.1990 onwards. However, the learned Tribunal has not recorded any finding about the continuous engagement of the 161 workmen for the entire period from 11.12.1990 till the impugned award has been made. It is the contention of the petitioner-management that the muster roll or the register showing the engagement of the workmen, on the admitted facts of the case and the provision of Section 19 of the Act of 1970 can only be in the custody of the contractor alone and not in the custody of the management and, therefore, the management could not have been saddled with the burden for producing muster roll in question. It appears that the reference has been made at the instance of the workmen in question and the burden of proof lie on workmen to establish the continuous engagement of 161 workmen in the perennial nature of work after the prohibition notification of December, 1990 in the said work of slurry removal under the management of Rajrappa Coal Washery. The workmen, as has been indicated above examined only one witness and none of the other witnesses and workmen came to show before the Industrial Tribunal as to the length of the time under which they were under engagement and whether they were at all engaged in the work of the management through the contractor for a continuous period from which regularization has been ordered. Even otherwise if the Industrial Adjudicator has come to a finding based upon the evidence adduced before it, it becomes incumbent upon the Industrial Adjudicator, in view of the ratio led down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to come to a finding whether the contract was in-fact genuine or camouflage. Admittedly, the contractor was under the license from the appropriate authority under the Act of 1970 before the prohibition notification came into force. Admittedly, the contractor was under the license from the appropriate authority under the Act of 1970 before the prohibition notification came into force. The Industrial Tribunal had to render a finding on the question that whether the contract is genuine or camouflage and, thereafter, further taken into account the consideration as has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment specifically in Para 125 (6) thereof before the workmen could have been directed to be regularized in the employment of the management as permanent employee. While arriving at such a decision, the Industrial Tribunal had to render finding upon the question whether the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen and whether the workmen in question were over aged and are required to be given age relaxation and other relaxation in academic qualifications other than technical qualification. 16. From the award which has been rendered by the Industrial adjudicator, it appears that having arrived at a finding of fact based upon the evidence of only 1 witness adduced by the sponsoring Union and also upon the xerox copy of muster roll register adduced by the workmen and reports of the A.L.C., it has arrived at a finding that the management had engaged the said workmen through principal contractor in a prohibited category of work, therefore, automatic regularization and absorption in services of the management was must. 17. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the workmen in the case of their workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (Supra), however are distinguishable as it appears on perusal of the said judgment that the Industrial Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the contract under which the workmen were doing perennial nature of work was a camouflage or ruse in which circumstances regularization of the concerned workmen was directed. However the ratio laid in other judgment relied upon by the workmen in the cases of Union of India and others Vrs. Janardhan Debanath & another (supra), Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radha Krishnan & others (supra) and Calcutta Port Sharmik Union Vrs. However the ratio laid in other judgment relied upon by the workmen in the cases of Union of India and others Vrs. Janardhan Debanath & another (supra), Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radha Krishnan & others (supra) and Calcutta Port Sharmik Union Vrs. The Calcutta River Transport Association & others (supra) do not come to aid of the workmen as under the present impugned award, the direction issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal are clearly in teeth of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Supra) as has been found herein above and that too in respect of regularization of 161 workmen without rendering specific findings as were necessary while answering the reference which have been discussed herein above. These findings, therefore, apparently are in teeth of what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.(Supra). 18. Therefore, the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to once again decide the issue keeping into light the ratio led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in the case Steel Authority of India Ltd.(Supra) and giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after them. Since, the reference is of 1993, it would be in the fitness of things that the industrial reference be decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.