JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 21.04.2017, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 267/94, whereby and whereunder claim of the concerned workman for regularization was rejected and it has been held that the concerned workman was not entitled for any relief. 3. Brief fact of the case is that about 157 workmen were engaged by the BCCL through contractor in Patherdih Coal Washery since the year 1972. The concerned workmen were engaged by the BCCL through the contractors in the Patherdih Coal Washery for a continuous nature of job of washing small particles from washery in the form of slurry and/or separating slurry from water and to dispatch the same to the Thermal Power Stations. In spite of long and continuous services rendered by the concerned workmen, the Management did not take any step for their regularization in service and as such, being aggrieved the concerned workmen raised Industrial Dispute. 4. During conciliation proceeding, the Management identified several workers who used to attend conciliation proceeding along with the representative of concerned Union. During conciliation, the Management took a specific plea that some of the workmen were not genuine and were merely job seekers. The conciliation ended in failure and on the basis of said failure report, the appropriate government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for adjudication with the following Schedule: 1. Whether 157 workmen, as per list enclosed, which has been submitted by the Secretary, Dhanbad Colliery Kramchari Sangh, Patherdih Coal Washery Branch, Dhanbad, have ever worked with the contractor of Patherdih Coal Washery in Transportation of Middling grade slurry, if not, who are the workmen who have actually worked in the said job? 2. Whether 157 workmen, as per list enclosed, which has been submitted by the Secretary, Dhanbad Colliery Kramchari Sangh, Patherdih Coal Washery Branch, Dhanbad, have ever worked with the contractor of Patherdih Coal Washery in Transportation of Middling grade slurry, if not, who are the workmen who have actually worked in the said job? 2. Whether the action of the management of Patherdih Coal Washery under Central Coal Washery Organisation of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in not regularizing/ departmentalizing the workmen who have actually worked as per (i) above in view of Director (Personnel), BCCL’s Letter No. DP/PS/91/C/5 dated 10.09.1991 is justified? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to? 5. 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, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad vide Award dated 21.04.2017 in Reference No. 267/94 rejected claim of the workmen for their regularization and it has been held that the concerned workmen were not entitled for any relief. 6. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that this is a fit case for interference where the poor workmen have been deprived from their legitimate right for regularization. Learned counsel further argues that in process, small coal particles from washery in the form of slurry along with water and the same is deposited in slurry ponds constructed for the purpose of storage. A large amount of coal are deposited in premises of washery which is known as middling, which is about 10-20% of the coal brought to the washery. Middling coal is dispatched to Thermal Power Plants and fine slurry is dispatched to Steel Plant. When the ponds are full, the slurry over flows and mixed with the river water of Damodar. After the water is soaked by the soil, small particles of coal are deposited in the river bed and the workmen used to collect the said coal and the same is sold by the Management to different customers. This process is continuous in nature and the concerned workmen have been engaged for extracting or lifting slurry deposited in the river bed since the year 1988. This process is continuous in nature and the concerned workmen have been engaged for extracting or lifting slurry deposited in the river bed since the year 1988. The mighty Management, in order to deprive the concerned workmen from their legitimate claim of wages as well as other benefits extended to the regular employees, have engaged them through contractors, which is a camouflage only to deprive them. Sometimes even if contractors are changed, the said workmen were working continuously for lifting slurry etc. Learned counsel further argues that the workmen have been employed in the coal washery for lifting and transporting middling grade slurry since 1988 and all of them have completed more than 240 days attendance in one calendar year till 1991. The concerned workmen were working under the supervision and control of the Management though were employed by the Patherdih Coal Washering through a Cooperative Society and other Contractors. The management, by adopting pick and choose method, regularized 184 contract labourers who were also performing same nature of job but discriminated these 157 workmen. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned Award is perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the very face of it as no evidence has been laid. Learned counsel further argues that the workmen have continuously worked for 240 days and as such the poor workmen are entitled for the prayer made by them. Learned counsel further argues that for determination of number of days of working in a calendar year, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to call for the Attendance Register and the Pay Slip etc., but the same has not been called for from the Management, even photographs of the attendance sheet has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal at the time of hearing and the workmen have been deprived from the benefits of regularization. 7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management argues that the Award has been passed based upon pure findings of fact. Learned counsel further argues that it is settled principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the High Courts would not interfere in matters relating to findings of fact. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management argues that the Award has been passed based upon pure findings of fact. Learned counsel further argues that it is settled principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the High Courts would not interfere in matters relating to findings of fact. Reference has been made in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. vs. Krishnakant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 , BSNL vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 and Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 85 . Learned counsel further argues that the findings of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of record or error of law nor the same is perverse. The Award needs no interference. 8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel further argues that the law relating to regularization is well settled by the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200 wherein it has been held that mere working for long period of employment (20 to 30 years) as a casual labourer under the employer by itself is not sufficient to sustain claim for regularization. Referring the Judgment passed by in the case of Their Workmen, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union vs. M/s. BCCL and Another, 2014 (4) JCR 477 (Jhr.) the Hon’ble Division of this Court has held that burden lies upon the workmen to prove several facts including the fact that they have worked for 240 days and having failed to prove these facts, the contract workers are not eligible for their regularization. Learned counsel further submits that the workmen failed to produce any identity card either issued by the contractor or the Management to prove their case that they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Learned counsel further submits that the workmen failed to produce any identity card either issued by the contractor or the Management to prove their case that they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Learned counsel further drew attention of this Court towards the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 , General Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lala, (2011) 1 SCC 635 , Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407 and submits that the law relating to employer-employee relationship has not been established in the instant case and as such the Award needs no interference. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties and on perusal of fact of the case and Judgments brought on record, it appears that this writ petition warrants no interference for the following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly there is no relationship of employer-employee between the Management and the concerned workmen. This Court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for the Management. The claim of the concerned workmen for their regularization is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The concerned workmen could not bring on record the documents to prove their case. (ii) In the case of Krushna Narayan Wanjari vs. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat through its Secretary and Another, (2018) 12 SCC 620 it has been held that unless the approach is well perverse and the 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. (iii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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 workmen could not prove their case for any interference or to hold that the employer-employee relationship exists between the Management and the concerned workmen. (v) In the instant case, the concerned workman has sought for regularization in Management who has never issued appointment letter nor the workmen have come with any documents to prove that they had worked for continuous 240 days in a calendar year. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I find the impugned Award needs no interference. 11. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.