JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case had been taken up on various dates through Video Conferencing and the same is being disposed of finally. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which have been held through Video Conferencing. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. PRAYER 2. The petitioner-Management has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 21.07.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 50/98 whereby and whereunder reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-Union holding that the demand for regularization of Sajjan Kumar Mishra, Clerk of BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund on the roll of the Management is legal and justified and he is entitled to be regularized as a Clerk with effect from 24.12.1990 with difference of backwages and all other consequential benefits as per NCWA. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Fact of the case in brief is that the concerned workman-Sajjan Kumar Mishra was an employee of the BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society. The concerned workman claimed to have been appointed by the Honorary Secretary of BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society and is performing duties of the said Society. The workman claimed that he was being paid by the Society out of its own funds and was being controlled by the Society through the Executive Committee. The concerned workman started demanding to be on the rolls of the petitioner-Management on the ground that the Society is a part and parcel of M/s. BCCL and the officers of M/s. BCCL including the Managing Director are the members of the Society and are holding dual posts - one in the capacity of Managing Director of M/s. BCCL or any other officers of M/s. BCCL and the another posts as Chairman or Secretary etc. of the Society. When demand of the concerned workman for his absorption was rejected by the Management, he raised an Industrial Disputes through his sponsoring Union namely The Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. of the Society. When demand of the concerned workman for his absorption was rejected by the Management, he raised an Industrial Disputes through his sponsoring Union namely The Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. The concerned Union, vide its letter dated 30.05.1997, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad stating therein that the concerned workman was appointed and working as a Clerk in BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society with the approval of the President on 24.12.1990 and was being paid consolidated salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Pursuant to the letter dated 23.06.1997 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, notices were issued to the petitioner-Management to submit comment and participate in conciliation proceedings. The Management, vide letter dated 29.7.1997/ 4.8.1997, denied any relationship of employer-employee or any contractual arrangement with the concerned workman and as such denied claim for his regularization. After failure of conciliation, report was submitted before the Central Government who, vide its order dated 13.08.1998, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad with the following terms: “Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of Sri Sajjan Kumar Mishra, Clerk of BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society on the roll of BCCL is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” 4. After receipt of notification from appropriate Government, notices were issued to both sides, who appeared and filed their respective written statements/reply and adduced evidences. After hearing the parties, considering facts and circumstances of the case, evidences adduced by the parties, vide Award dated 21.07.2010, the reference was answered in favour of the workman and against the Management holding therein that the concerned workman had been working with the Management of BCCL since long and, therefore, his demand for regularization on the rolls of BCCL is legal and justified. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Management has knocked door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT 5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Management, assailing the impugned Award argues that BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society has been incorporated for the purposes of collection of funds and management of the same for providing benevolent assistance to the members of the Society in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable to the said Society. The said Society has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having Registration No. 158 of 1976-77. The said Society has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having Registration No. 158 of 1976-77. The said Society acts through the Executive Committee constituted as per the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society. The Managing Director of the petitioner-Management is the Ex-officio Chairman while the Chief Finance Manager or his nominee acts as the Ex-officio Treasurer of the Society. The other Executive Members of the Society are nominated by the Chairman and some others are elected by the General Body of the Society. The Funds are collected from the Officers by way of admission fee, monthly subscriptions and special contributions and deposits and are deposited as a Fixed Deposits to earn interests. The Society provides assistance to the officers and the family members out of special contributions, interests etc. according to the Rules in case of death of a member or in case of disability suffered by him in course of employment. 6. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel further argues that the Society is an independent body and functions independently for the benefits of the officers of M/s. BCCL. The petitioner-Management does not supervise or pass direction or exercise control over the management of the Society. The Managing Director as well as all the other officers of the Company are members of the Society and they have financial interests against the eventualities. No inference can be drawn that Society is part and parcel of the petitioner-Management. In absence of employer-employee relationship between Management of BCCL and the workman, the petitioner-Management is not at all liable for the acts and omissions of the Society for any reason, whatsoever. The Industrial Dispute itself is bad in law. The case of the workman is not maintainable on the ground that he himself has claimed that he was appointed by the Society and not by the Management of BCCL. The pay orders were issued on the printed forms of BCCL but name of the Society was duly reflected as paying authority. Learned counsel argued that there is error of law in arriving at findings by the Tribunal and the same is fit to be interfered. 7. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relies upon the following Judgments: (i) National Aluminium Co. Learned counsel argued that there is error of law in arriving at findings by the Tribunal and the same is fit to be interfered. 7. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relies upon the following Judgments: (i) National Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 (ii) Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 407 (iii) Bhuwanesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries, (2014) 11 SCC 85 (iv) Atlas Cycle vs. Kitab Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 573 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-WORKMAN 8. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman argues that the concerned workman was appointed by the Honorary Secretary of BCCL Officers’ Benevolent Fund Society and he was performing duties of the said Society. Learned counsel further argues that salary was paid by the Society using printed form of pay order of BCCL. The attendance was also duly marked in the attendance register. The nomination of the workman was duly maintained in Form-F for the purpose of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The office of the Society is also situated in Koyla Bhawan. Learned counsel further argues that vehicles of the BCCL was being used by the officers of BCCL to come and attend meetings of the Society. The Members and office bearers of the Society are the Executive/officers or the BCCL and, therefore, the Society is part and parcel of BCCL and, therefore, the workman is entitled to be regularized. Learned counsel further submits that one Shiuli Sarkar was appointed by BCCL and posted in the Society and later on was transferred to Kolkata. Thus on the principles of parity and principles of natural justice, the concerned workman is entitled for the benefits and as such there is no illegality or any perversity in the impugned Award. The writ petition merits dismissal. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties and on perusal of the Judgments brought on record, it appears that this writ petition warrants interference for the following facts and reasons: (i) The impugned Award suffers from patent illegalities and therefore, it can comfortably be said that the same is based upon errors of law. Admittedly there is no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner-Management and the concerned workman. Admittedly there is no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner-Management and the concerned workman. The appointment letter brought on record vide Exhibit-M-2, issued by the Society, Registration of the Society, its Bye-laws, registration under the provisions of Income Tax Act, etc. have been overlooked by the Tribunal. All these documents show that the concerned workman was appointed by the Society and was governed by the Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of the Society and not the petitioner-Management. Even the disciplinary control was of the Society and not of the Management. The findings of the Tribunal is totally errors of law. This Court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-Management. The Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and is a separate body incorporated and concerned workman was admittedly appointed by the Society and not by the petitioner-Management. The claim of the concerned workman for regularization etc. on the basis of receipts of Pay Order, which was issued on the printed form of the management of BCCL and also because of the fact that office of the Society is situated in Koyla Bhawan, is nt acceptable to this Court. (ii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another, (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. In the instant case, the workmen did not discharge this onus and did not establish that they were working directly under control and supervision of the management, the question of employer-employee does not arise at all. (iii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills vs. Bharat Lal and Another (Supra), had 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 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, workmen have failed to establish their case. (b) Whether the principal employer control and supervises the work of the employees? In the instant case on both these counts, workmen have failed to establish their case. (iv) The reliance of the learned counsel for the workman in the case of Krushna Narayan Wanjari vs. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat through its Secretary and Another, (2018) 12 SCC 620 does not come to his rescue as though it has been held in the said case that unless the approach is well perverse and the learned Tribunal had acted in no evidence, the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not justified in interfering with the Award as it cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an Appellate Court. In the instant case, the Tribunal has completely overlooked the material evidence and has relied upon the evidences which cannot be termed to be the cogent ground for regularization. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 , has held that there is no employer-employee relationship between the employees of the school and NALCO which had established the schools for benefit of wards of its employees. (v) In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 407 , the prayer for regularization of workmen engaged in statutory canteens of Air India run by Contractor, a wholly owned subsidiary of AIR India, were refused on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship. (vi) Further, in the case of Bhuwanesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries, (2014) 11 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where Labour Court commits patent mistake in law in arriving at a conclusion contrary to law, the same can be corrected by the High Court. In the instant case, the Tribunal has committed a patent error of law to hold that the employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner-Management and the concerned workman. (vii) In the case of Atlas Cycle vs. Kitab Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 573 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when Labour Court arrives at a finding overlooking the materials on record, it would amount to perversity. Findings of facts based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by writ of certiorari. Findings of facts based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by writ of certiorari. In the instant case, the Tribunal has wrongly admitted that the documents which do not constitute employer-employee relationship. The Tribunal has totally misconstrued in ignoring the Ex.2, the appointment letter issued by the Society, the registration of the Society, its bye-laws, audit report and application for registration under Income Tax Act. The appointing authority was governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Society and not of the BCCL. (viii) 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 the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 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 Tribunals, 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 the case of Sawarn Singh vs. State of Punjab, (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. (ix) In the instant case, the concerned workman has sought for regularization in BCCL-Petitioner even though letter of appointment was never issued by it rather he was appointed by a registered Society. When the initial appointment letter of the workman has not been issued by the Management of BCCL, the question of regularization in petitioner-Company does not arise and as such the impugned Award suffers from patent illegalities and is fit to be interfered. Even if there are vacant posts in the petitioner- Management, the concerned workman cannot be adjusted there. When the initial appointment letter of the workman has not been issued by the Management of BCCL, the question of regularization in petitioner-Company does not arise and as such the impugned Award suffers from patent illegalities and is fit to be interfered. Even if there are vacant posts in the petitioner- Management, the concerned workman cannot be adjusted there. The Courts can interfere only when it appears that regularization is necessitated to advance justice. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the impugned Award is fit to be quashed and set aside. 11. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed. Award dated 21.07.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 50/98 is hereby quashed and set aside.