Judgment H.G. Mishra, J. Both these writ applications arise out of the same Award and common question of law is involved in both these cases. As such they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. The petitioners in both the cases are the Employers in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, and they are aggrieved by the common Award dated 18th September, 2000 passed in Reference Case No.2 of 1994 as also in Reference Case No. 59 of 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. 4. The Industrial disputes referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, in both these cases are that whether the action of the management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd., was justified in not regularising the services of the workers, who were sponsored by the Workers Union, and terminating there services. 5. The brief facts giving rise to the reference of the industrial disputes, are that the workmen sponsored by the Workers Union claimed that they were engaged in plant cleaning job in Rajrappa Washery of the Central. Coalfields Limited from the year 1987 up to the year 1991-1992, but they had been stopped from duty after they raised the industrial dispute for regularization of their services. It was claimed that the plant cleaning job was permanent in nature and by a Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, there was a prohibition of employment of contract labours for the plant cleaning job. On the other hand, the management had asserted that the concerned persons had never been engaged by the management and they had done the casual nature of job for a very limited period, under a contractor. The management had taken a plea that some of them were contractor's workers and the contractor was engaged for transporting coal from the colliery to the washery by means of dumpers or automatic tippers. Sometimes big chunk of coals were transported by them up to the washery which were kept aside and the contractor was engaged for breaking the coal chunk into small pieces. Sometimes big chunk of coals were transported by them up to the washery which were kept aside and the contractor was engaged for breaking the coal chunk into small pieces. The management had taken the plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of Rajrappa Washery and the concerned workmen. 6. The Award shows that only one witness was examined by the management who was the Superintending Engineer in Rajrappa Washery. He stated that for transportation of coal, contractors were engaged and in course of transportation if any big chunk of coal comes, it is removed by the pay loaders and stacked in the side and when such chunk of coal becomes huge quantity then contractor is engaged for breaking such coal. He proved four work orders issued to the contractor for breaking coal which had been marked as Ext.-'M-1' series. He had also stated that the workers were selected and engaged by the contractor and their works were supervised by the contractor and they were also paid wages by the contractor. However, the Award shows that no such plea was taken in the written statement of the management, nor it had been stated that any work order was issued to such contractor. Therefore, for the first time the management came up with the story before the Tribunal about the engagement of the contractor and doing some miscellaneous job through contractor. It was also admitted by the management witness that he knew some of the workers by face. The Award further shows that the management had not filed any registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act regarding the engagement of contractor, nor the license of the contractor under the said Act had been filed and proved by the management. As such, the management had failed to show that their Establishment was registered for engagement of contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The management had not even examined the contractor to show that his workers had worked for a very limited period and that also, not in the prohibited category of the plant cleaning job. 7. On the other hand the sponsoring Union had also examined one witness, who claimed that he along with other concerned persons were working for many years in the job of plant cleaning and after they raised the dispute, they had been stopped from work. 7. On the other hand the sponsoring Union had also examined one witness, who claimed that he along with other concerned persons were working for many years in the job of plant cleaning and after they raised the dispute, they had been stopped from work. In support of their claim that they were engaged in the job of plant cleaning, the sponsoring Union had brought on record the photostat copies of the duty list, attendance register etc., showing that the concerned persons were engaged on duty on all the three shifts. The wage-cum-muster rolls were also proved, showing that the concerned persons were engaged and were also paid the wages for plant cleaning job in several months. The originals of these documents were called for from the management, which they did not file, nor there was any challenge from the management that those were the forged documents, and accordingly, those documents were taken into evidence, which clearly showed that the concerned persons had been working for several years as plant cleaning mazdoors, which is admittedly the prohibited category of job in which no contract labour could be engaged. 8. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal gave the finding that the concerned persons had been working in the plant cleaning job, which is a prohibited category of job and there was relationship of employer and employee between the management and the concerned workmen and they were entitled for the regularisation and accordingly, it was awarded that the concerned persons be regularised as General Mazdoor Category-1, within thirty days from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the concerned persons would be entitled for wages of General Mazdoor Category-1 as per the rate prescribed, with effect from the date of publication of the Award. If the Award was not implemented within six months then the concerned persons were also made entitled for the interest at the rate of 12½% per annum of their wages payable as General Mazdoor Category-1. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Award in question is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the Award was not implemented within six months then the concerned persons were also made entitled for the interest at the rate of 12½% per annum of their wages payable as General Mazdoor Category-1. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Award in question is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the workmen concerned were actually the workmen of the contractor and they were never engaged by the management, and there being no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the concerned persons, no award could have been passed for regularisation of their services. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and Ors., reported in (2006)3 SCC 674 [2006(2) JLJR (SC) 157], as also in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. K.V. Shramik Sangh and Ors., reported in (2002)4 SCC 609 , in which the absorption of the contract labours were refused by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The fact, however, remains that in the present case there is a clear finding of fact by the Industrial Tribunal, based on the evidence on record, that the management failed to prove that the petitioners were the labours of the contractor, and accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration by the writ Court, and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are of no benefit to the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further challenged the Award submitting that the Award in question shows that the Industrial Tribunal has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. Vs. United labour Union and Ors., reported in (1997)9 SCC 377 , for coming to the conclusion that the plant cleaning job was permanent nature of job and contract workers in such job shall be deemed to the employees of the principal employer and they are entitled for regularization. It is submitted by learned counsel that the said decision has been overruled by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., reported in (2001)7 SCC 1 . It is submitted by learned counsel that the said decision has been overruled by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., reported in (2001)7 SCC 1 . Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 [2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282], wherein in the case of appointments made without following the prescribed procedure for selection, it has been held as follows:- "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary' employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. ………..” 11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Anr. vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Ors., reported in (2007)5 SCC 755 [2007(3) JLJR (SC) 32], wherein it has been held as follows:- "6. It is true as contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the question as regards the effect of the industrial adjudicators powers was not directly in issue in Umadevi (3) case. But the foundational logic in Umadevi (3) case is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the industrial adjudicator can vary the terms of the contract of the employment, it cannot do something which is violative of Article 14. If the case is one which is covered• by the concept of regularisation, the same cannot be viewed differently." 12. Placing reliance upon these decisions learned counsel submitted that even if the claim of the concerned workmen is accepted that they were engaged by the management for plant cleaning job, but the fact remains that they were illegally engaged without following the prescribed procedure for appointment, and in view of the law laid down in Umadevi (3) case (supra), they cannot claim any regularization of their services and even in U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra), it has been held that Umadevi (3) case shall be applicable even to the Industrial Adjudicators. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Union on the other hand, has pointed out that in the similar circumstances the workmen who were engaged in the Giddi Coal Washery of the Central Coalfields Limited, were also denied regularisation of their services and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government in Reference No. 228 of 2000, which was again answered by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the concerned workmen. The management filed the writ application being W.P.(L) No. 1802 of 2007, which was dismissed by judgment dated 11.9.2007, against which the L.P.A. was also preferred, which was also dismissed by order dated 4.12.2007 in LPA No. 345 of 2007. The management again moved the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.A.(Civil) No. 4345 of 2008, which was dismissed by order dated 28.3.2008. These orders of the High Court and the Apex Court have been brought on record by way of supplementary counter-affidavit as Annexures-'A', 'B' and 'C': Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief, as the case of the petitioners are exactly on the same footing and the other co-workmen have been given the benefit of regularization even by the Apex Court. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors., reported in (2015)6 SCC 494 . The case related to the engagement of 1050 employees for the security requirement in a project of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited in Kaveri basin. Initially they were employed through contractors and upon coming into force of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, abolishing contract labour for the posts of watch and ward, dusting and cleaning jobs in the Corporation, the concerned workmen were employed as per the settlement arrived at between the trade union and the management of the Corporation. Subsequently upon entrusting the security work to the Central Industrial Security Force, their services were dispensed with. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and taking into consideration its earlier decision in Umadevi (3) case (supra), the law has been laid down by the Apex Court as follows:- "31. Subsequently upon entrusting the security work to the Central Industrial Security Force, their services were dispensed with. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and taking into consideration its earlier decision in Umadevi (3) case (supra), the law has been laid down by the Apex Court as follows:- "31. In the case on hand, the workmen concerned were employed by the Corporation initially through contractors. …………….. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Corporation that the services of the workmen concerned cannot be regularised as their appointment was originally and initially through contractors and thereafter without following any procedure of selection and appointment as per the Recruitment Rules and therefore, the same is illegal by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in para 43 of Umadevi (3) case. Further, this Court in Ajapyal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corpn. opined that when a workman is initially appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, then the employer at the time of reemployment of the retrenched workman cannot take the plea that the initial appointment was in violation of the abovementioned provisions. The relevant paragraph of Ajapyal Singh case is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 329, para 17) '17. ... The provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3) case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject-matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi (3) case.' The plea of the Corporation that the reason for not regularising the workmen concerned under the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation is allegedly due to the fact that the appointment of the workmen concerned was made without following due procedure in the Recruitment Rules and that their appointments were illegal. This plea cannot be accepted by us in view of the legal principle laid down by this Court in the above decision wherein it is clearly laid down that the Corporation cannot deny the rights of the workmen by taking the plea that their initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) 14. This plea cannot be accepted by us in view of the legal principle laid down by this Court in the above decision wherein it is clearly laid down that the Corporation cannot deny the rights of the workmen by taking the plea that their initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) 14. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that in any case the engagement of the concerned workmen even if said to be contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ONGC Ltd. (supra). Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the Award and the same cannot be interfered with. 15. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the present case that even though the management had taken a belated plea that the concerned workmen were engaged by the contractors and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workmen, but the management utterly failed to prove the fact that the concerned workmen were engaged by the contractor. The management did not even examine the contractor to prove that the concerned workmen were the employees of the contractor and the Award clearly shows that the management did not even prove any registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, regarding the engagement of contractor, nor the license of the contractor had been proved, whereas on the other hand the workmen had been able to prove that they had been working in the plant cleaning job which is a prohibited category of job and therefore, there was relationship of employer and employee between the management and the concerned workmen and they were entitled to regularisation. 16. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that even if the engagement of the petitioners were illegal/irregular and violative of Arts. 16. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that even if the engagement of the petitioners were illegal/irregular and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, at the initial stage, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ONGC Ltd., (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has quoted with approval the law laid down in Ajaypal Singh's Case, reported in (2015)6 SCC 321 , that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3) case. This apart, in the similar circumstances, the workmen of Giddi Coal Washery under the same management, who were also denied the same relief, have been given the benefit of regularisation of services which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above. 17. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Industrial Tribunal has answered both the references involved in these cases in favour of the workmen and the findings of facts recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, which are based on the evidence on record, warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I find no infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned Award dated 18th September, 2000 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 2 of 1994 and Reference Case No. 59 of 1992. 18. There is no merit in both these writ applications and the same are accordingly, dismissed.