ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 16.07.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Reference No. 69/1996 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners-workmen for regularization of their services as wagon loader. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioners-workmen were engaged by the respondent-Management as wagon loader at Railway Siding Nos. 4 & 5 of Bhowra North Colliery of M/S BCCL since 1980. The demand was raised for regularization of the petitioners’ services in terms with Circular No. BCCL/DCPA/HO/CC/89/23790-24090 dated 24/25.04.1989; however, the respondent-Management did not agree with the said demand and stopped them from working since 3.08.1992. Thereafter, the Union of the petitioners-workmen raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for conciliation. The conciliation failed and the failure report was sent to the Central Government for making reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, the Union of India did not take decision on the issue of reference. Thereafter, the petitioners-workmen through their Union filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 2509 of 1995 (R) before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.1995 directing the Union of India to pass necessary order on the failure report. Thereafter, the Government of India made the reference on 12.07.1996 which was registered as Reference No. 69 of 1996 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad. The learned Tribunal however rejected the claim of the petitioners which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen submits that the Union of the petitioners had contested their case before the learned Tribunal; however, they have approached this Court in individual capacity. Learned counsel further submits that there is an open cast project in the North Bhowra Colliery of M/S BCCL and during the relevant period, the coal used to be stored at the pit head and the same used to be transported to different places and then used to be stored in the railway wagon and for that purpose the wagon loaders used to be engaged by the respondents. Apart from the permanent wagon loaders, the respondents used to appoint the wagon loaders on temporary/daily wages basis. The petitioners-workmen were directly employed and paid by the Management, but the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the master-servant relationship between the Management and the petitioners. The learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the petitioners had put 190/240 days attendance per year in the mine during 1981-1991 and were working till their termination in the year 1992 and as such they are entitled for their regularization in terms with Circular No. BCCL/DCPA/HQ/CC/89/23790-24090 dated 24/25.04.1979 issued by the respondents. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the wagon loading was in the prohibited category of work under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act 1970 and the nature of job was permanent which could not have been allowed to be done by the casual labourers. Since the petitioners were engaged by the respondents for the said job, they were not only bound to regularize them, but were also liable for penal consequences. The learned Tribunal has committed serious error by giving more weightage to the documentary evidence by observing that the petitioners did not produce any documentary evidence and ignoring the oral evidence of W.W-3 and W.W-4 who categorically deposed that the petitioners had been working under the respondent-Management since 1980 as wagon loaders and took specific stand that the respondent-Management had deliberately not issued any chit of paper in order to deprive them of the benefits of the regular employees. The learned Tribunal has also not considered the enquiry report dated 05.08.1994 prepared by the Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Jharia which was sent to the Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III for taking necessary action. In the said enquiry report, the statements of 10 permanent wagon loaders of Bhowra North Colliery were recorded, which confirmed that the petitioners were working as wagon loaders since last 10 to 12 years and the payment used to be made to them by the ‘Loading Babu’ of the respondent-Management. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Employer in relation to the Management of Rajhara Colliery of M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., through its General Manager, Palamau Vs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Employer in relation to the Management of Rajhara Colliery of M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., through its General Manager, Palamau Vs. President, Rajhara Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Rajhara Area reported in 2014(2) JLJR 329 and submits that the learned Tribunal committed serious error in not drawing adverse inference against the respondent-Management on their failure to produce the wagon dispatch register and the attendance register of the permanent wagon loaders being maintained by the Management at Side Nos. 4 & 5 at Bhowra North Colliery of M/S BCCL from 1982 to 1992 which would have shown that since the Management did not have sufficient number of permanent wagon loaders in the said colliery, they needed the services of the petitioners-workmen. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Management submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal is substantially based on facts which need not be interfered by this Court in exercises of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen rightly observed that the term of the reference was itself vague. Had there been any pleading by the petitioners-workmen in their written statement to the effect that both the registers were being maintained by the Management in the concerned colliery, only then the question of production of the said registers would have arisen. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the petitioners-workmen failed to prove that there was any employer-employee relationship between them as no appointment letter issued by the Management could be produced by the concerned workmen. The petitioners were also not able to establish that they worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year. They also could not produce any identity card issued by the Management for their alleged engagement. The initial burden of proof lies on the concerned workmen to show that they completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani &Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100 and in the case of Oshiar Prasad & Ors. Vs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani &Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100 and in the case of Oshiar Prasad & Ors. Vs. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 [: 2015 (1) JLJR 391]. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners-workmen have challenged the impugned award whereby the reference relating to the regularization of the concerned workmen has been answered in favour of the Management holding that the petitioners’ Union could not specifically establish the clear status of 51 workmen as wagon loaders for the relevant period and as such apparently there was no employer-employee relationship between the concerned workmen and the Management. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen has contended that the respondent-Management failed to produce the wagon dispatch register and the attendance register maintained by the Management and thus the learned Tribunal was required to draw an adverse inference against the Management. I have perused the judgment of Employer in relation to the Management of Rajhara Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (Supra) as has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, it was not in dispute that the concerned workmen were employed by the M/S CCL as casual wagon loaders and they were working since 1973-74. The Management claimed that the concerned workmen were not regularly employed; however, they did not produce any document in support of their claim, and thus the learned Division Bench of this Court held that in absence of any supporting document, the oral evidence of the management witness did not deserve weightage. 9. The fact of the present case is different from that of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen. In the present case, the respondents had vehemently denied the engagement of the petitioners with the Management during the industrial adjudication and thus the initial burden was upon the petitioners-workmen to produce prima-facie materials before the learned Tribunal to prove their employment under the respondents. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RBI Vs. S. Mani (Supra) has held as under: “24. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RBI Vs. S. Mani (Supra) has held as under: “24. The question came up for consideration before this Court recently in Siri Niwas wherein it was held: “15. A court of law even in a case where provisions of the Evidence Act apply, may presume or may not presume that if a party despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the same, it would have gone against his contentions. The matter, however, would be different where despite direction by a court the evidence is withheld. Presumption as to adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and one of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration is the background of facts involved in the lis. The presumption, thus, is not obligatory because notwithstanding the intentional non-production, other circumstances may exist upon which such intentional non-production may be found to be justifiable on some reasonable grounds.” 25. Referring to the decision of this Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain this Court observed: “19. Furthermore a party in order to get benefit of the provisions contained in Section 114 Ill. (g) of the Evidence Act must place some evidence in support of his case. Here the respondent failed to do so.” 26. In Hariram this Court observed : “11. The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously.” 11. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not obligatory upon the Court to presume adverse inference merely by non-production of evidence, rather every case has to be dealt on its own fact. In the present case, none of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the concerned workmen, has stated that the wagon dispatch register and the attendance register were being maintained at the instance of the Management or by whom. In absence of any such pleading or oral evidence to that effect, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to draw any adverse inference against the respondent-Management. 12. In absence of any such pleading or oral evidence to that effect, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to draw any adverse inference against the respondent-Management. 12. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners-workmen used to be directly employed as wagon loaders by the respondents and they used to be paid wages by the Management directly. On the contrary, the respondents vehemently denied the said claim of the petitioners stating in the written statement that the concerned workmen were never employed by the Management. The petitioners produced four witnesses before the learned Tribunal in support of their claim. W.W-1 has admitted in his evidence that the concerned workmen did not have any document to show that they were appointed by the Loading Munshi and they worked for 240 days in each calendar year on any siding. The W.W-1 has also deposed that the workmen were not issued any pay slip, ID Card etc. by the Management. Though W.W-2, who was working as a permanent wagon loader, has deposed that the concerned workmen worked during the year 1980, but she has admitted that the pay slips were not issued to them. W.W-3, who was the retired Loading Munshi, though claimed that the concerned workmen were working as wagon loaders from 1980 to 1988, however, he also did not produce any chit of paper regarding their status as the permanent employees of the Management. He also asserted that no payment of wages in any manner, except through a pay slip, used to be made by the Management. Further, W.W-4, the retired LEO(C), has though deposed in his evidence that during enquiry, he recorded the statements of the permanent wagon loaders who stated that the concerned workmen were working with the Management for 10-12 years, however, he could not verify the photographs of the concerned workmen or their LTIs/signatures. The Management Witness No. 1 has deposed that none of the concerned workmen was on the rolls of the Management and they were never given any job of Wagon Loaders at Siding Nos. 4 & 5. The said Management witness has also deposed that since the Management had sufficient number of wagon loaders, the demand of the Union (petitioners-workmen) for their regularization was wholly unjustified. 13. 4 & 5. The said Management witness has also deposed that since the Management had sufficient number of wagon loaders, the demand of the Union (petitioners-workmen) for their regularization was wholly unjustified. 13. On perusal of the evidence of the workmen witnesses, it appears that they did not have a chit of paper in support of their claim of master-servant relationship between the Management and the concerned workmen. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties came to a finding that the Union failed to establish the case of regularization of the concerned workmen. It is a settled law that the High Court does not sit in appeal over the finding of the Labour Court or Tribunal to re-adjudicate the questions of facts decided by the industrial adjudicator. The power of superintendence of the High Court is exercised to inquire where the Court/Tribunal has acted (i) without jurisdiction–by assuming the jurisdiction where there exists none, (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction, (iii) in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or in violation of the principles of natural justice and thereby occasioning failure of justice. In the present case, I do not find any such infirmity in the impugned award of the learned Tribunal which would require any interference by this Court. 14. Moreover, it appears from the record that the petitioners-workmen were out of service since 1992 and the Labour Enforcement Officer prepared a report in the year 1994 recording the statements of 10 permanent wagon loaders. However, the term of the reference clearly indicates that the same was for regularization of the concerned workmen. In the case of Oshiar Prasad (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that absorption and regularisation in service can be claimed or/and granted only when the contract of employment subsists. Once the employment comes to an end either by efflux of time or as per the terms of the contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists except for the limited purpose to examine the legality and correctness of its termination. Since the day the industrial dispute was raised and subsequently referred for adjudication, the petitioners-workmen were out of employment, there could not have been an award for their regularization in absence of a specific reference for reinstatement of the concerned workmen. 15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.