ORDER : Through Video Conferencing. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 03.01.2012, passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 38 of 1995, whereby it has been held that the demand of the Union for regularization of services of S/Sri Surresh Paswan and 45 others named in order of reference, is not legal and justified and accordingly the concerned workman are not entitled for any relief. 3. It was the case of the workmen before the learned Tribunal that they were engaged by the management of Burragarh Colliery under Bhalgara Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for short “M/s. BCCL”) by constituting a Co-operative Society in the year 1989 to perform the duties at Burragarh Colliery. It was the specific case of the workmen that their works were same and similar to the works performed by the regular employees of M/s. BCCL. They continued to discharge their assigned job from 1989 to 1997 and put more than 190 days attendance in each calendar year. However, due to divergent view of the management the names of present workmen were not entered in the Form ‘B’ register and they were also not made members of Coal Mines Provident Funds. It was the further case of the workmen that management provided them all safety equipments, like helmets, boot (shoes), Cap Lamp etc. and as such, they were working under direct control and supervision the management of M/s. BCCL. It was further pleaded that for the aforesaid facts and reasons their demand for regularization of their services were justified. However, when no steps were taken by the management of M/s. BCCL for regularization of their services, the workmen through their Union, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred vide Order dated 28.04.1995 to learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, by framing following issue for adjudication: “Whether the demand of Union for regularization of S/Sri Suresh Paswan and 45 others (as per list enclosed) Co-operative workers by the management of Burragarh Colliery, Area No. VIII of M/s. BCCL is legal and justified? If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled and from which date?” 4. Upon receipt of the notification, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. Case No. 38 of 1995 and issued notices to the parties. If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled and from which date?” 4. Upon receipt of the notification, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. Case No. 38 of 1995 and issued notices to the parties. Upon receipt of the notices, both parties appeared and filed their respective written statements. Thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties and perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, by its Award dated 03.01.2012, answered the Reference in favour of the respondent-management, holding that: “9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned workmen have not been able to prove that they have worked with the management directly or whether they worked through Co-operative Society. No Identity Cards have been filed which have been issued by the Co-operative Society or by the management for doing the jobs of the management. Moreover, no payment receipts have been filed by the concerned workmen to show that they have been paid wages from the management. 10. In the result, I hold that the demand of Union for regularization of S/Shri Suresh Paswan and 45 others, the names mentioned in the order of reference, Co-operative workers by the management of Burragarh Colliery, Area No. VIII of M/s. BCCL, is not legal and justified. Accordingly, the concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief.” Aggrieved by the award dated 03.01.2012, passed by learned Tribunal, the petitioner-workmen have approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse, bad in law as well as on facts and therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that the concerned workmen have filed a petition on 18.02.1999, before the Tribunal for producing certain documents which were in possession of the Management i.e. Form ‘C’ and ‘E’ registers, Cap Lamps issue register, Store requisition slip and issue register, wage sheets for the years 1989 to 1991, which could clearly establish the case of the petitioner that they were directly employed and were under direct control of the management but the management purposely not produced the said documents before the Tribunal and learned Tribunal without considering the aforesaid facts, passed the impugned Award, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for their regularization. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal based its findings on the erroneous facts, ignoring the fact that relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workmen and the management has been established and the management has not brought anything on record to deny the said fact. As such, the concerned workmen deserves to be reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of their termination by the management. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-management vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that no employer/employee relationship exists between the management and the workmen and the concerned workmen were not the workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Though the concerned workmen are claiming that they were employed directly under the management of BCCL but have miserably failed to discharge the onus and also the consequential burden of proof of the fact that they were working directly under the management and were paid wages by the respondent-management. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent-management deny that the concerned workmen were engaged by the management of BCCL by constituting a Co-operative Society in the year 1989. Further, the alleged works were neither permanent nor perennial in nature and the concerned workmen failed to establish by leading evidence that they worked continuously since long thereby establishing employer/ employee relationship. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the Award dated. 03.01.2012, for the following facts and reasons: (I) The petitioner failed to prove the fact that they were engaged by the management of BCCL by constituting a Co-operative Society in the year 1989. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 635 has held that it is for the workmen claiming employer-employee relationship are to aver and prove that they were paid salary directly by the principal employer and not by the contractor. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 635 has held that it is for the workmen claiming employer-employee relationship are to aver and prove that they were paid salary directly by the principal employer and not by the contractor. Since the petitioner did not discharge this onus and did not establish that the concerned workmen were working directly under the control and supervision of the management of BCCL, the Tribunal has rightly held that the concerned persons were not the direct employee of the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal and Anr. (supra), held that two of the well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are- (a) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor? (b) Whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees. In the instant case on both these counts, the petitioner has failed to establish its case. (II) Further it is crystal clear that the co-operative workers were engaged in miscellaneous jobs such as, carrying materials, making stopping work, cleaning jobs as and when required and the concerned workers of the cooperative society were engaged on the requisition issued to the Secretary of the Co-operative society. The petitioner’s witnesses failed to establish that the concerned workmen worked directly under the management. The Union also failed to produce the Identity Card of any of the workmen either issued by the Co-operative Society or by the Management for doing the jobs of the management. Further, no receipt of payment of salary has been produced by the workmen which could establish the fact that the salaries were paid by the management. (III) It is well settled law that findings of facts recorded by a Tribunal requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. RAdhakrishnan, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 has held that a writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. Orders passed by inferior Courts or Tribunal, which are without jurisdiction or are in excess of it, fail to exercise jurisdiction a writ of certiorari can be issued. K.S. RAdhakrishnan, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 has held that a writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. Orders passed by inferior Courts or Tribunal, which are without jurisdiction or are in excess of it, fail to exercise jurisdiction a writ of certiorari can be issued. Where the Tribunal exercise jurisdiction illegally or improperly or the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposes to principles of natural justice, a writ under Article 226 of Constitution can be issued. Similarly, the Apex Court in case of Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 has held that a finding of fact recorded by an inferior Tribunal, writ of certiorari can be issued only if, while recording such a finding, the Tribunal has acted on no evidence or has refused to admit admissible evidence or if the findings are not supported by any evidence at all. In such cases, the error amounts to an error of law. 8. As sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I am in agreement with the Award dated 03.01.2012, passed by learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 38 of 1995. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.