JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi dated 31.03.2008 by which it has been held that the 19 (nineteen) concerned workman deserve regularization of the services and they deserve the status and privilege of permanent workmen. The Government of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 12.09.2003 had referred the following dispute for adjudication: “Whether not to regularize the Services of 19 casual workmen all S/Shri (1) Ganesh (2) Baleshwar Singh (3) Kayum (4) Sidheshwar Yadav (5) Chandrika No. 2 (6) Iquebal Ahmed (7) Bachcha Lal (8) Bandhari (9) Bhagwan Deen No. 2 (10)) Ram Khelawan (11) Md. Yunus (12) Ramnath Singh (13) Smt. Reshma (14) Sajan Jaiswal (15) Dilehar (16) Rafique (17) Ram Pyare (18) Ram Kishun Pashi and (19) Budhan Ram and depriving them of their status and privileges of Permanent Workmen by Loyabad Power House, Dhanbad under the Management of Bihar (now Jharkhand) State Electricity Board, who have been working as Casual Workmen since 1975 under the said Management and BCCL is justified? If not what relief they are entitled to?” 3. The management filed its written statement in which it has been averred that Loyabad Power House was taken over by the Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) in the light of the Ordinance of the Govt. of Bihar dated 17.07.1975 and as per the said taking over the officers, staff and workmen of the erstwhile company were taken over by the BSEB. In course of time, the Board decided to hand over the taken over Power House to M/s. BCCL and consequently it was handed over on 01.10.1980 including all the officers, staff and workmen existing on the roll of BSEB connected with the Loyabad Power House. It has been stated that the name of the concerned workmen did not figure in the list of workmen handed over to the Management of M/s. BCCL. The BSEB once again decided to take back the Management of Loyabad Power House based on the decision of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India and accordingly it was taken back from M/s. BCCL on 01.04.1992. The BSEB once again decided to take back the Management of Loyabad Power House based on the decision of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India and accordingly it was taken back from M/s. BCCL on 01.04.1992. It has further been stated that in pursuance of the minutes of the meeting held on 30.12.1991 it was decided that those assistants, staffs and workmen who were in the services of the Board on 01.10.1980 and continued in service up to the date of return by M/s. BCCL on 01.04.1992 were to be taken back on 01.04.1992. It has once again been asserted that the concerned 19 workmen claiming for regularization did not figure in the list. 4. The claim for regularization has been opposed by the Management of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) wherein it has been stated that it will be saddled with financial burden if ultimately the dispute is answered in favour of the workmen. It has further been stated that JSEB never appointed any such person after its creation nor it ever accepted their services. 5. The workmen submitted their written statement in which it has been stated that they were working since 1966 as casual labour and thereafter they worked in Bird Company Limited from 17.07.1975 after which date the Electricity Board had taken over Bird Company along with their employees as also their service liabilities. It has further been stated that from 19.07.1975 till 30.09.1980 the workmen were regular employees and working continuously for more than 240 days in a year. The Board had deducted provident fund, given sick leave, house rent and medical facilities as is given to the permanent employees. The workmen contended that since 1.10.1980 M/s. BCCL had taken over these workmen for the purpose of generation operation and they were again returned back to the Board from 01.14.1992 onwards. It has also been claimed that on 22.07.1989 several employees became permanent employees of the BCCL. It has also been claimed that the concerned workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year and they deserve to be regularized. 6. It has been stated by Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen concerned were the employees of M/s. BCCL and not JSEB. It has been stated that there was no employee-employer relationship between the concerned workmen and the Electricity Board. 6. It has been stated by Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen concerned were the employees of M/s. BCCL and not JSEB. It has been stated that there was no employee-employer relationship between the concerned workmen and the Electricity Board. Learned further submits that since M/s. BCCL had taken over the management after which it was once again been taken over by the Electricity Board therefore under such circumstances M/s. BCCL was a necessary party. 7. Mr. Satish Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand submits that no part of the Award is perverse and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It has been stated that the workmen concerned were actually employees of the Electricity Board and there existed employer-employee relationship between the Board and the concerned workmen and they had also worked for more than 240 days in a year for a continuous length of time. It has further been claimed that absence of perversity in the Award should lead to dismissal of the present writ application. 8. Learned Tribunal on being confronted with the factual aspects of the case as put forward by the management as well as the workmen had framed the following issues: (I) Whether the reference is bad in law? (II) Whether there exists relationship of employer-employee between the management and the concerned workmen? (III) Whether not to regularize the services of 19 casual workmen (mentioned in terms of reference) and depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen by Loyabad Power House, Dhabad under the management of Bihar (now Jharkhand) State Electricity Board, who have been working as causal workmen since 1975 under said management and BCCL is justified? If not, what relief are they entitled to? 9. The Issue No. (I) was decided in favour of the workmen and so far as the Issue No. (II) is concerned it was held that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the management of JSEB and the concerned workmen. Exhibit W-4 is a list dated 09/14.04.1992 of Loyabad Power House when the same was under the control of BCCL where the names of the 19 concerned workmen had figured which proved that they were working in Loyabad Power House. Exhibit W-4 is a list dated 09/14.04.1992 of Loyabad Power House when the same was under the control of BCCL where the names of the 19 concerned workmen had figured which proved that they were working in Loyabad Power House. Exhibit W-5 relates to the fact that the concerned workmen had completed 240 days of attendance in the year 1980 and 1981 during the period prior to taking over the Management of Loyabad Power House by M/s. BCCL. Other documents also indicate that they were given various benefits as are given to permanent employees and as such although being casual the basic structure of permanency in the services of the 19 concerned workmen was apparent. 10. The workmen concerned therefore were initially working in Bird Company which was running Loyabad Power House which was ultimately taken over by the Electricity Board, handed over to M/s. BCCL and once again taken over by the Board. Thus it can be concluded with certainty that the workman concerned were originally employees of the Board once it was taken over by the Board prior to handing over of Loyabad Power House to M/s. BCCL. In this respect it would be pertinent to refer to letter dated 29.02.1992 issued by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board addressed to the Chief Engineer (E&M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad in which it was intimated that M/s. BCCL should accept the responsibility of the employment of the concerned workmen on the rolls or retrench them prior to handing over of the dead generating station to the Board. Similar is a subsequent letter dated 04.03.1992. The tenor of both the letters reveals that the Board was intending to offload the workmen on the premise that the responsibility lies with M/s. BCCL. There is no dispute about the fact that when the Loyabad Power Plant was taken over by the Electricity Board along with all its assets and liabilities the workmen also became casual employees of the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board did not produce the attendance register and wage register with respect to the period prior to handing over the Loyabad Power Plant at the first instance to M/s. BCCL and non-production of such evidence, which could have an impact on the claim of the concerned workmen, would obviously draw adverse inference against the management. 11. The Electricity Board did not produce the attendance register and wage register with respect to the period prior to handing over the Loyabad Power Plant at the first instance to M/s. BCCL and non-production of such evidence, which could have an impact on the claim of the concerned workmen, would obviously draw adverse inference against the management. 11. Thus from the discussions made herein above it cannot but be concluded that the concerned workman who are 19 in number were the employees of the Board and there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the Electricity Board and the 19 concerned workmen and on such consideration the Tribunal had rightly held that they deserve regularization of their services. 12. This application in view of the above stands dismissed.