JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Following dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad :- Whether the 35 persons whose names are shown in the Annexure and who were employed by M/s Triveni Engineering Works, a Contractor at Dugda Coal Washery are to be treated as workmen of M/s BCCL and whether the demand of the Coal Washeries Workers Union that these persons be regularized/ absorbed in the services of M/s BCCL is justified ? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled ? 3. After considering the evidence in detail oral as well as documentary, which is apparent from the para-16 as well as the documents which were produced by the management considered in para 17 of the impugned award, the tribunal reached to the findings that initially these 35 persons were employed by M/s Triveni Engineering Works, a contractor of the appellant- company but the said M/s Triveni Engineering Works was awarded work contract under a tender for the period from 1.12.1986 to 15.10.1987 and the contention of the appellant is that the said contractor was given separate work for construction of dump slurry plant from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990 may not be believed for want of any documentary evidence and that the tribunal also appreciated the fact that work was of permanent nature and the management was of the view that without help of experienced workmen, who were initially engaged by the contractor, the project will not run. In view of the above, the continuation of the payment of wages by appellant to the workmen though through earlier contractor M/s Triveni Engineering Works is nothing but a camouflage as it was not under any valid contract by the appellant to Triveni Engineering Works and therefore, the workmen were working for the benefit of the appellant-company and wages were paid by the appellant company. In view of the above, it has been held that these 35 workmen had direct relation with the appellant and their services were terminated in violation of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Tribunal therefore, held that these 35 workmen are entitled to regularization/ absorption in the job with back wages. In view of the above, it has been held that these 35 workmen had direct relation with the appellant and their services were terminated in violation of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Tribunal therefore, held that these 35 workmen are entitled to regularization/ absorption in the job with back wages. However, since the appellant did not take any work, therefore, back wages have been awarded to the extent of 30% of the full back wages and that too with effect from 1st July 1990. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that, even terms of the reference clearly indicates that even workmen's own case was that they are employees of the contractor and they never sought any relief on the basis of the violation of Section 25(F) of the said Act and they sought relief of regularization/absorption. It is submitted that the company produced the evidence to prove the fact that the work was given to the contractor and the tribunal also found that initially the work was given to the contractor and workmen were employees of the contractor. From the documentary evidence, it has been proved by the appellant that all the payments were made to the workmen by the contractor and not by the management of the appellant Company. Therefore, no relationship of employer and employee ever came into existence between the appellant and workmen. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-workmen vehemently submitted that the tribunal has recorded the findings of fact after appreciation of the evidence and it is not a case that any of the evidence has not been considered by the tribunal. Once finding is recorded by appreciation of evidence, re-appreciation is by the High Court is not permissible. Here in this case, the learned Single Judge, even after above legal position carefully gone through the award, held that it is a case of recording of findings of fact that the contractor subsequently was nothing but a camouflage to deny the legitimate benefits of the workmen. It is also an admitted case that the appellant management failed to produce any documentary evidence that the contractor was also given another contract for running the plant etc i.e. From 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990. 5. It is also an admitted case that the appellant management failed to produce any documentary evidence that the contractor was also given another contract for running the plant etc i.e. From 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990. 5. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case and the reasons given in the impugned award. We are of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not only referred but also carefully considered the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the parties and reached to the conclusion that, initially workmen were engaged through contractor and subsequent to that the workmen started working under the direct control and management of the appellant company and we could not found any contract under which M/s Triveni Engineering Works may have given any work contract either for construction of dump slurry plant or for its operation. Other evidences also clearly indicate that management was of the view that these workmen are experienced persons and these workmen are also advised to enroll themselves with Employment Exchange and they were called for interview also. It is clearly indicated that there was need of the workmen and the workmen were not only duly qualified but also were experienced and out of them, some workmen have been regularized/ absorbed. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned award. 6. However, we found some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, whereby the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of reinstatement should not have been pressed in view of passing of time of more than 20 years by now, from stoppage of work from these workmen. 7. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that it is none of the fault of the workmen and they immediately raised the dispute and if the labour court and this court have taken time for deciding the dispute, they may not be denied reinstatement. 8. We considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that even the Labour court was of the view that these workmen are not entitled to full back wages in view of the fact that they did not work and the back wages were also awarded w.e.f. 1st July 1990. 8. We considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that even the Labour court was of the view that these workmen are not entitled to full back wages in view of the fact that they did not work and the back wages were also awarded w.e.f. 1st July 1990. The workmen worked from 1986-1990 for which they got their salary /wages and this fact is not in dispute. Thereafter the workmen are getting the benefit of the payment of wages in view of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the award dated 19th July 2007. In view of the above fact that these workmen are not working since 1990, we do not find it equitable to maintain the order to reinstate the employees after 20 years. So far as the compensation in lieu of the reinstatement is concerned, we deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) to each of the workmen in addition to whatever amount has been paid to these workmen u/s 17(b) of the said Act by the appellant. 9. With this modification, this LPA is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.