ORDER : 1. 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. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the Award dated 07.08.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.13/1997 by which the demand of the Union for regularization of the services of concerned workmen with the Management of Dugda Coal Washing of M/s BCCL is totally unjustified and as such, concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief for departmentalizing/regularizing workmen in their respective position. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The workmen concerned of petitioner-Union namely Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyanchand Singh and Sivbachan Singh had been performing the maintenance job of permanent /perennial nature from 1985 and were under direct control and supervision of BCCL. The concerned workmen were also engaged for the work of maintenance of water supply from the intake well to all coal washery and were doing other works as directed by his superior authority and continuously worked for more than 9 years i.e. from 1985 to 1994 under different contractors engaged by the management from time to time and as such, they represented before the Management for regularization of their services and release of wages as per law, but it went in vain. Thereafter, the Union raised the industrial dispute before the A.L.C (C) on 05.03.1994; however, during the pendency of conciliation proceeding, the Management stopped taking work from the workmen concerned w.e.f. 28.12.1994. 4. Thereafter, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour has referred the industrial dispute for adjudication before the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad with the following Schedule: "Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of the services of S/Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyandhand Singh and Sivbachan Singh with the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?" 5. Upon the receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. No. 13 of 1997 and issued notices upon the respective parties to submit their written statement, rejoinder, etc. If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?" 5. Upon the receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. No. 13 of 1997 and issued notices upon the respective parties to submit their written statement, rejoinder, etc. The petitioner-Union/concerned workmen submitted their written statement and prayed for regularization of services of concerned workmen with the Management of the Dugda Coal Washery. Upon receipt of the notice and written statement of the petitioner-workman, the respondent-Management appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed rejoinder. 6. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length and after perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, came to the conclusion vide Award dated 07.08.2013 that the demand of the Union for regularization of the services of S/Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyanchand Singh and Shivbachan Singh with the Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL is totally unjustified. So the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Union has been constrained to knock the door of this Court, challenging the Award dated 07.08.2013. 7. Mr. Swapan Maji, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal without considering material facts passed an award on 07.08.2013 in favour of the Management and as such, the impugned Award is illegal. The non-consideration of documents and facts of the case, which were relied upon by the petitioner/workmen/Union is improper exercise of power by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that as the concerned workmen were engaged by the Management through different Contractors, but their jobs were permanent nature and they worked for more than 9 years on low payment, the petitioner- workmen cannot be denied relief. He further submits that though the workmen were initially engaged through the agencies, but they were working under the supervision of the Management and it was the management of M/s BCCL, who was used to supply machine tools, supplements for maintaining the works of the petitioner- workmen. The present workmen of the Union hadworked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, in fact for more than 9 years, and as such, the impugned Award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 9. Mr. The present workmen of the Union hadworked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, in fact for more than 9 years, and as such, the impugned Award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 9. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel representing the respondent-Management vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and justifies the impugned Award passed by the C.G.I.T. No.2, Dhanbad in Ref. No.13 of 1997. He further submits the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are findings of fact, which requires no interference by this Hon'ble Court, exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the fact that the 3 workmen were never issued any appointment letter, pay slip or identity card and on the contrary, these workmen are casual workers of M/s. Raju Construction, S.K. Construction and S.R. Construction all being Civil, Structural, Mechanical and General Contractor executing Civil works. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that no illegality has been committed either by the learned Tribunal or by the Management-respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner/Union. Admittedly, these three workmen were not issued any appointment letter, pay-slip and any identity card by the respondent-Management and also they were contractual labourers of Raju Construction, S.K. Construction and S.R. Construction. Further, the employer-employee relationship between the members of the petitioner- Union and the Management-respondent is not established. The petitioner failed to prove the fact that they were engaged by the management of BCCL. The findings of facts recorded by a Tribunal, requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. 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. 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) has 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 Union has failed to establish its case. 12. 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, 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. 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court is in full agreement with the findings expressed by the learned Tribunal and as such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award dated 07.08.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad. 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court is in full agreement with the findings expressed by the learned Tribunal and as such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award dated 07.08.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad. There is no merit in the instant case. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.