ORDER : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing impugned Award dated 05.01.2012, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad and published by the Respondent No.1 under Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by notification dated 08.02.2012-21.03 in Ref. Case No. 102/2003, by which the respondent No.2 was directed to be reinstated in services as part time sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.1999 with 50% back wages and be regularized. 3. As per the factual matrix, the workman-respondent No.2 was orally appointed/engaged by the Management of Central Bank of India to discharge the duties of Sweeper/Peon on and from 02.08.1997. He was discharging his duties of cleaning and sweeping the branch premises and other works as assigned by the petitioner-Bank for which, he was being paid wages @ Rs.5/- per day. The respondent No.2 lastly worked on 31.03.1999 and after that no work was being taken from the petitioner-Management. It is further the stand of the workman that when step for regularizing the services of some other casual daily labour was being taken, the Incharge Manager of the Bank was requested to take appropriate action in his matter also, but no heed was paid. Aggrieved by the same, the workman approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 3023/2000 for regularization of his services on Class-IV post, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2004. Thereafter, the workman-respondent No.2 raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Patna, which ended in failure and the Central Government referred the dispute before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Dhanabad with the following terms of Reference: “Whether the claim of Sri Krishna Kumar that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the Management of Central Bank of India during the period from 02.08.1997 to 31.03.1999 is correct? If so, what relief is he entitled to? Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Krishna Kumar is justified and legal ? If not what relief is he entitled ? 4. If so, what relief is he entitled to? Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Krishna Kumar is justified and legal ? If not what relief is he entitled ? 4. Upon the receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. No. 102 of 2003 and issued notices upon the respective parties to submit their written statement, rejoinder, etc. Upon receipt of the notice, petitioner-Bank appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed rejoinder. 5. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties at length and after perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, came to the conclusion vide Award dated 05.01.2012 that the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service as part time sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.1999 with 50 % backwages and be regularized. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Bank has been constrained to knock the door of this Court, challenging the Award dated, 05.01.2012. 6. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management assails the impugned Award on the ground that the impugned Award is perverse in view of the observation of Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.3023/2000. He further submits that when the case of the respondent No.2 for regularization has been turned down by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on merit, it is not open for the learned Tribunal to reconsider the same and as such, the case of the workman is barred by estoppel and res judicata. He further submits that so far as termination part is concerned, no evidence is on record before the learned Tribunal as well as this Hon’ble Court to show that the workman-respondent No.2 had worked for the period of 240 days continuously in a calendar year from 1997-1999. The workman was not appointed against any regular /sanctioned post. As and when, he worked, he was paid Rs.5/- per day. He further submits that there is no order of termination of his services. The workman was not appointed against any regular /sanctioned post. As and when, he worked, he was paid Rs.5/- per day. He further submits that there is no order of termination of his services. As per Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the very first requirement is that the workman has to work for 1 year continuously, but there is no evidence to that effect that he has worked for one year continuously and as such, first requirement has not been fulfilled or proved by the workman-respondent No.2. He further argues that while passing the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the concerned workman had no right to the post as his engagement was on part time basis and was not on daily wage basis either against a vacant post or temporary vacancy and as such, the impugned Award is perverse and nullity on the face of it and the findings of learned Tribunal are contrary to the materials on record. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in following cases: (i) State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Another Vs. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 (ii) Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282] (iii) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal in Civil Appeal No.1878/2016 and other analogous cases, (2020) SCC Online SC 150 7. On the other hand, respondents have not filed counter affidavit. 8. However, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank and submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned Award. He further submits that the petitioner-Bank has not adduced any evidence before the learned Tribunal, even the petitioner-Bank has not produced the order of Hon’ble Patna High Court. The workman-respondent No.2 was doing the job of sweeper from 02.08.1997 to 31.03.1999 by getting Rs.5/- per day through voucher, this fact was not denied by the petitioner-Bank and no document was produced to show that this statement is incorrect before the learned Tribunal. The termination, though orally, was illegal and as such, learned Tribunal has rightly decided the Reference in favour of the workman-respondent No.2. The termination, though orally, was illegal and as such, learned Tribunal has rightly decided the Reference in favour of the workman-respondent No.2. The petitioner-Bank has not produced any single document or any evidence to show that the workman was not working on daily-wages before the learned Tribunal and as such, document which has not been produced before the learned Tribunal, cannot be produced in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The workman has continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such, instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 12 SCC 754 9. Be that as it may, having considered the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the respondent No.2 was not appointed by the Competent Authority and no appointment letter was ever produced and also evidence to that effect has not been laid by either of the parties before the learned Tribunal. The concerned workman was engaged as a daily-wager by the Petitioner-Bank for the period from 02.08.1997 to 31.03.1999 for which he received Rs.5/- per day through Voucher, which is not denied by the petitioner-Bank before the learned Tribunal. The workman-respondent No.2 moved earlier before the Hon’ble Patna High Court for regularization of his services by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 3023/2000, which was rejected by the Hon’ble Patna High Court as there was no Scheme for regularizing such type of casual /daily-wage workman; however, a direction was given to the Management to consider the case of concerned workman as and when vacancies arise and such Scheme is floated by the Management, but not a chit of paper has been produced whether the Management-petitioner came out with such Scheme or not and whether the appointments were made thereafter and case of the respondent No.2 –workman was ever considered. The non-consideration of the case of the respondent No.2- workman on the ground that appointment was not in accordance with law and placing reliance on the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) for retrenchment/dismissal of the respondent No.2 is not accepted to this Court and learned Tribunal has rightly directed the management-petitioner to reinstate the workman with 50 % backwages. 10. 10. The case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Hon’ble Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Court (under Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 11. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of the Schedule-IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer. 12. The extent to which Umadevi (supra) applies, in the arena of industrial adjudication, and affects the jurisdiction and power of Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals to direct regularization, are issue which have proved to be prickly and thorny in equal measure. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the similar issue in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Shashi Kanta Rishi passed in W.P.(C) NO. 225/2005 has held thus: 28. The first significant decision, on the issue, appears to be U.P. Power Corporation Ltd vs Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 , by a two Judge bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through Pasayat, J. The respondents, in the said case, were appointed as chowkidars, on muster-roll basis, and were being paid daily wages. Consequent to a decision, of the Corporation, that no casual workers would be engaged, the services of the respondents were terminated. The respondents moved the Industrial Tribunal, alleging infraction of Section 25-F of the ID Act, and succeeded. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen, but did not consider the issue of their regularization, though it was raised. The second respondent, in the said case, thereafter, raised another industrial dispute, seeking, inter alia, regularisation of his services. The respondents moved the Industrial Tribunal, alleging infraction of Section 25-F of the ID Act, and succeeded. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen, but did not consider the issue of their regularization, though it was raised. The second respondent, in the said case, thereafter, raised another industrial dispute, seeking, inter alia, regularisation of his services. He also filed a writ petition, challenging the earlier award of the Industrial Tribunal, complaining that the issue of regularization had not been considered therein. Ultimately, the High Court remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, to decide the issue of regularization of the said workmen. The Tribunal, adjudicating the remand, held that the workmen were deemed to have been regularised, on completion of three years of service with the Corporation. The Corporation moved the writ Court, thereagainst, but the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workmen were entitled to regularization. The Corporation appealed, further, to the Supreme Court, citing, in its support, Umadevi (supra). The workmen, per contra, sought to contend that Umadevi (supra) did not deal with the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, which was a species sui generis. The Supreme Court, while accepting the fact that the powers of the industrial adjudicator were not in issue in Umadevi (supra), held, nevertheless, that "the foundational logic" in Umadevi (supra) was based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having said that, the Supreme Court merely held, in conclusion, that "the industrial adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the observations made by this Court in Umadevi case about the regularization." It is not possible to understand this judgment as categorically pronouncing on the issue of the power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct regularization, this way or that. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of BSNL v. Bhurunal, (2014) 2 SCC (L & S) 373, has held thus :- “It is apparent that the aforesaid findings are findings of fact. Such findings are not to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Interference is permissible only in case these findings are totally perverse or based on no evidence. Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to interdict these findings as it is not the function of this Court to reappreciate the evidence. Interference is permissible only in case these findings are totally perverse or based on no evidence. Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to interdict these findings as it is not the function of this Court to reappreciate the evidence. It was because of this reason that the learned counsel for the appellant made frontal attack on the findings of the courts below and endeavoured to demonstrate that there was perversity in the fact-finding by CGIT which was glossed over by the High Court as well.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gaurishanker (supra), it has been held thus:- 23. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as per the legal principles laid down by this Court in Harjinder Singh wherein this Court has held thus: (SCC p. 205, para 21) “21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: ‘10. … The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.’ (State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines AIR p. 928, para 10.)” The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana. 24. 24. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid case, the learned Single Judge in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India erroneously interfered with the award of reinstatement and future salary from the date of award till date of reinstatement as rightly passed by the Labour Court recording valid and cogent reasons in answer to the points of dispute holding that the workman has worked from 1-1-1987 to 1-4-1992 and that non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act by the respondent Department rendered its action of termination of the services of the workman as void ab initio in law and instead the High Court erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench under their supervisory jurisdiction should not have modified the award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is contrary to the well-settled principles of law laid down in a catena of cases by this Court. 16. Considering other aspects of the matter, it is also well settled that the orders of the Tribunal can only be interfered if there is gross illegality and the order is perverse and without jurisdiction. This Court, sitting under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can only interfere if the aforesaid elements are attracted. Since the issue of regularization has already been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.3023/2000, but by exceeding its jurisdiction, learned Tribunal has passed an order for regularization of services of the respondent No. 2-workman, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. As a result, the part of impugned Award for regularization of service is set aside and accordingly, the impugned Award is modified to read as follow : ‘The concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service as part time sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.1999 with 50 % backwages’. Accordingly, the Management is directed to pay the aforesaid, within a period of ten weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, the Management is directed to pay the aforesaid, within a period of ten weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, the same is left open for the petitioner-Management to consider the case of respondent No.2 as and when the vacancies arise or some Scheme for regularization is floated in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.3023 of 2000. 18. The impugned Award is modified to the extent mention above and accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 19. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.