ORDER : Reference may be made to order dated 29.08.2017 which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that the notice issued vide order dated 23.09.2010 has been validly served. Under the said circumstance, put up this case on 20.09.2017. It is made clear that if on the next date, no one appears on behalf of the respondent, the case shall be decided after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of the materials available on record.” The case was thereafter listed before a Bench of this Court and on that date also, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, the case was adjourned giving one more chance to the respondent to contest the present writ petition. Even today, no one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the management for quashing/setting aside the award dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘”the Tribunal”) in Reference No. 62 of 1999, whereby the learned Tribunal has answered the reference against the petitioner-management by directing it to allow Mrs. M. Joseph and 29 others to avail 18 days gazetted holidays and 8 days holidays per annum at par with the Central Government employees since the date of their joining at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. 4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (hereinafter referred to as “CMLWO”) under the Department of Ministry of Energy, Government of India, created under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1947 was engaged in the welfare of the workmen working in coal mines. The Act, 1947 was subsequently repealed by the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986 (Act No. 27 of 1986). In pursuance of order No. 11021/6/86-CSW dated 22.09.1986 of the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, all the institutions of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization were transferred to the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited. All the regular full time employees of the erstwhile CMLWO stood transferred to the respective coal companies w.e.f. 01.10.1986. 5. In pursuance of order No. 11021/6/86-CSW dated 22.09.1986 of the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, all the institutions of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization were transferred to the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited. All the regular full time employees of the erstwhile CMLWO stood transferred to the respective coal companies w.e.f. 01.10.1986. 5. The General Manager (MP & IR) Coal India Limited vide circular dated 30.11.1986, informed all the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited including M/s BCCL regarding the terms and conditions of service in the subsidiaries of CIL in replacement of the existing terms and conditions of service under CMLWO. A prescribed form of option was also circulated with the said circular to be filled by the employees of the erstwhile CMLWO transferred w.e.f. 01.10.1986. Accordingly, all the employees working in the Central Hospital, Dhanbad which merged with M/s BCCL were forwarded with the option form. 6. Para-3 of the option form is quoted hereinbelow:- 3. Accordingly you are required to exercise option in the favour of any one of the following:- (a) Option No. 1 :- Option to be absorbed in the Company’s pay scale and terms and conditions. (b) Option No. 2 :- Option to be absorbed in the Company’s but retention of the Government pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefits. 7. All the concerned employees opted option 2, however, they were denied 18 days gazetted holidays and 8 days holidays at par with the Central Government Employees. The respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute and when the conciliation failed, the Central Government, vide order dated 17.04.1999 referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. The term of the reference is as follows : “Whether the action of the management of Central Hospital, M/s BCCL, Dhanbad in not allowing to M/s M. Joseph and 29 others (as per list) to avail the 18 days gazette holidays and 8 days holidays at par with the Central Government Employees per annum is justified? If not, to what relief these para medical employees are entitled to?” 8. Admittedly, the concerned workmen opted for option no. 2 as detailed in paragraph-3 of the option form which was marked as Ext. W-1 (Annexure-3 to the present writ petition). According to Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the option no. If not, to what relief these para medical employees are entitled to?” 8. Admittedly, the concerned workmen opted for option no. 2 as detailed in paragraph-3 of the option form which was marked as Ext. W-1 (Annexure-3 to the present writ petition). According to Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the option no. 2 as detailed in paragraph-3 of the said option form has further been elaborated in the same document itself which reads as under: Option No. 2: (a) Employees on absorption who do not opt for Company’s pay scales and terms and conditions of service, will retain their existing pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefits as admissible in Government service as on 31st July 85 immediately prior to absorption. (b) Such of the optees will also be governed by their existing rules in the matter of overtime, leave, leave travel concession. (c) In the matter of discipline, medical facilities and working hours and holidays they will be governed by the Company at their place of posting. (d) Such of the optees will however, not be entitled to any career growth opportunities at par with those optees opting for Company’s pay scales. (e) Such of the optees opting for Govt. pensionary benefit will have to become members of the Public Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.8.1985. (f) Superannuation of such optees will remain 58 years of age. 9. Referring to the said elaboration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been categorically mentioned in Clause (c) that in the matter of discipline, medical facilities, working hours and holidays, the workmen of erstwhile CMLWO would be governed by the rules of the company on their places of posting since the said stipulation was already made in the option form Ext. W-1. There was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to deliberate on any other issue so as to brush aside the contention of the petitioner management and to answer the reference in favour of the concerned workmen directing the management to permit 18 days gazetted holidays and 8 days holidays to the concerned workmen since the date of their joining at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. 10. I find force in the submission of Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner-management as admittedly, the concerned workmen had opted for option no. 2 as mentioned in paragraph-3 of the option form (Ext. W-1). 10. I find force in the submission of Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner-management as admittedly, the concerned workmen had opted for option no. 2 as mentioned in paragraph-3 of the option form (Ext. W-1). Paragraph-3(b) contains option no. 2 which provides the option to be absorbed in the Company on retention of the Government pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefits. However, the said option no. 2 has further been elaborated in the same option form and Clause (c) of the same explains that in the matter of discipline, medical facilities, working hours and holidays, the said workmen (those who were engaged in erstwhile CMLWO) will be governed by the rules of the company at their place of posting. If the option no. 2 as mentioned in paragraph-3(b) of the option form (Ext. W-1) is conjointly read with the elaboration made in subsequent paragraph, it will emerge that employees of erstwhile CMLWO would be governed by all the prevailing service conditions including the Government pay scales, pensionary benefits etc. except in the matter of discipline, working hours and holidays which would be governed by rules of the company at the respective places of posting of the concerned workman. To clarify it further, the employees of erstwhile CMLWO would be entitled for all the service conditions i.e., retention of Government pay scales, pensionary benefits, overtime, leave, leave travel concession etc., however, so far as the discipline, medical facilities, working hours and holidays are concerned, they would be governed by the company’s rules applicable at their place of posting. There appears to be no ambiguity in inferring the same on the basis of Ext. W-1. 11. The learned Tribunal appears to have gone beyond the record in later part of paragraph-6 of the impugned judgment by interpreting that as per the stipulation of the option /absorption form, the said workmen would be entitled for the Government pay scale and other benefits including the service conditions and pensionary benefits as well as the holidays. In my considered view, the matter of holidays has been excluded from the rest of the benefits to be available by erstwhile employees of CMLWO at par with the Central Government employees while retention of their service in the company on opting the option no. 2 as mentioned in paragraph 3(b) of Ext. W-1. In my considered view, the matter of holidays has been excluded from the rest of the benefits to be available by erstwhile employees of CMLWO at par with the Central Government employees while retention of their service in the company on opting the option no. 2 as mentioned in paragraph 3(b) of Ext. W-1. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal is misdirected and perverse. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 62 of 1999 cannot be sustained in law and as such, the same is quashed and set aside. 13. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.