JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. As the instant Writ petitions arise out of the same Award, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in (W.P. (L) No. 2098 of 2012) has approached this Court for quashing of the Award dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 36 of 2005 whereby and where under the Tribunal has been pleased to answer the Reference in favour of the Respondent-workman holding that he is entitled to be regularized as Instructor in Technical Grade "B" w.e.f. 14.01.1995 with difference of wages and other consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner (in W.P. (L) No. 4840 of 2019) has approached this Court for quashing of the judgement dated 23.4.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No.03/2013 whereby the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad has been pleased to direct payment of dues of wages to the Respondent-workman with other consequential benefits w.e.f. 14.1.1995 as per the Award passed in Ref. Case No. 36/2005 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. 4. As per factual matrix, the respondent-workman was appointed as Helper Trainee (Fitter) in Category I on 21.01.90 and was thereafter upgraded to post of Helper (Fitter) w.e.f. 08.02.91. On 22.03.91, the Dy. CPM (MP & P) wrote a letter to the CGM (E&M), Koyla Bhawan mentioning therein that there is an urgent need of Instructor for U/G Mech. Thereafter the petitioner-Management floated the Advertisement for appointment to the post of instructor pursuant to which, the respondent-workman being eligible in all respects applied for the same vide application dated 14.08.01. The Principal, EMTI, BCCL, Dhanbad called upon the Respondent-workman to appear in interview to be held on 25.03.92. Subsequently, the Respondent-workman appeared and was interviewed and upon being found suitable the Respondent-workman was selected as Instructor. However, the appointment letter to that effect has not been received by the Respondent-workman. Thereafter the Respondent-workman was transferred to HRD Department, Kalyan Bhawan. However, on account of certain eventualities, he was not relieved and vide letter No. 21 dated 12.01.93, the GM (HRD) again requested the Project Officer to relieve the petitioner for joining at EMTI, Dhansar for training of the incumbents. Thereafter the Respondent-workman was transferred to HRD Department, Kalyan Bhawan. However, on account of certain eventualities, he was not relieved and vide letter No. 21 dated 12.01.93, the GM (HRD) again requested the Project Officer to relieve the petitioner for joining at EMTI, Dhansar for training of the incumbents. But when the Respondent-workman was again not relieved, he moved this Court and pursuant to Court's order the respondent-workman was relieved vide release order dated 18.11.1994. and the petitioner-authorities floated the Advertisement for appointment to the post and subsequently, the workman reported for duty to the G.M. (HRD), BCCL on 19.11.94. However, he was again transferred to join at Experimental cum Training Mine, Godhur vide Release Order dated 19.12.94. Thereafter the Respondent-workman was transferred as Instructor from one place to another and vide Office Order dated 04/13.01.95, the workman was directed to join the Area Training Centre (known as VTC), Kusunda. Subsequently, vide Office Order No. 1640 dated 07.06.95, the workman was sent to undergo Trainers Training Programme wherein his designation was duly mentioned as Fitter Helper/Instructor. The Respondent-workman time and again requested the authorities for re-designation of his post as Mechanical Instructor vide letter dated 10.06.95, 09.08.95 and in pursuance thereof, the Area Personnel Manager, Kusunda VTC requested the G.T.O. to give details about the work assigned to the workman vide letter No. 3595 dated 20.11.95. In reply to the same, the Group Training Officer, VTC issued a letter No. 962 dated 09/12.02.96 stating therein that the workman is working as Mechanical Instructor w.e.f. 14.01.95 till date and his total attendance is 323 days from the date of joining. As the respondent-workman has been working as an Instructor/Mechanical Instructor since 14.01.95 and he has worked for more than 6 months against a permanent post and as such under clause 7.2 of the Certified Standing Order, the workman is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mechanical Instructor. There is no requirement/work of Fitter Helper at VTC or other training institutes and the same is only a field post. The post of Instructor is duly sanctioned and also another employee namely Uma Shankar Ram has been appointed and posted as an Instructor Vide Office Order No. 31393-96 dated 02/04.08.86. There is no requirement/work of Fitter Helper at VTC or other training institutes and the same is only a field post. The post of Instructor is duly sanctioned and also another employee namely Uma Shankar Ram has been appointed and posted as an Instructor Vide Office Order No. 31393-96 dated 02/04.08.86. The petitioner management has been taking the work of Instructor from the Respondent-workman since 1995 and the work of the Respondent-workman has been much appreciated by all concerned and hence, workman is entitled to be regularized against the said post of Instructor. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that the Award of the Tribunal is illegal, invalid and improper. The Tribunal has committed an error of record and error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned award. The Award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside as the same is perverse. In absence of any cadre scheme for regularization of a Helper Trainee 'Fitter' in Cat. II as Instructor in Training Institute, the Tribunal has committed an error in directing regularization of services of workman. Further in absence of any legal provision to the effect that a person working on ad hoc, in-charge or officiating basis can be regularized against the post on which he is officiating, the Tribunal has committed an error in directing regularization of the concerned workman as Instructor. Further in absence of any requirement of a Mechanical Instructor at Kusunda Vocational Training Centre, the Tribunal was not justified in law in directing regularization of the concerned workman. Further as the industrial dispute was raised after a delay of twelve years from the date the cause of action arose, the Reference itself was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. 6. To buttress his argument Mr. Mehta Counsel for the Management relied on the following reported judgments: i. (2004) 1 SCC 68 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman drawing the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submits that regularization of workman to the post of Mechanical Instructor is correct and the impugned Award warrants no interference. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman drawing the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submits that regularization of workman to the post of Mechanical Instructor is correct and the impugned Award warrants no interference. The Tribunal has never directed for regularization of the Helper Trainee "Fitter' in Category II as Instructor as being alleged, but has directed for regularization of the respondent-workman in view of the fact that the respondent workman was duly qualified and selected for appointment to the post of instructor following due selection process and further that the petitioner-Management has been taking work of instructor w.e.f. the year 1995. The post of Instructor is duly sanctioned and there is vacancy and requirement thereon as without the said vacancy and requirement, the advertisement would never have been issued and hence the claim of the petitioner-Management is baseless. Under the Standing Order of the organization, the respondent-workman was required to be regularized as Instructor as he had worked as such for years together. Clause 7.2 reads as follows: "A permanent workman is one who is employed on a job of permanent nature for a period of at least 6 months or who has satisfactorily put in 6 months continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer." 8. In view of the above, if any workman who has employed/worked for at least 6 months on a job of permanent nature, he becomes a permanent workman of the organization and since the respondent has worked for years altogether against the post of 'Instructor' he is entitled to be regularized as 'Instructor'. Under the B.C.C.L. Standing Orders, there is no concept of officiating post/ workman and the workman has never been made to work in 'Officiating' capacity. Even the Standing Order does not recognize any such post and in fact even 'Badli'/ Substitute workers become permanent workmen under the Standing Orders. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse and needs to be interfered for the following facts and reasons: i. The issue of regularization was earlier tested before the writ court in W.P. (S) No. 4756 of 2001 and was answered in negative. The petitioner has no right to hold the post of mechanical instructor and as such the prayer of regularization against post of mechanical instructor was rightly rejected by the petitioner-Management. ii. This Court while dismissing the writ petition W.P. (S) No. 4756 of 2001 vide order dated 26.09.2001 did not give liberty to the petitioner to move before the Tribunal for getting the matter adjudicated. iii. The issue of regularization between the same parties once decided before the High Court is admittedly barred by res judicata as without any liberty it was not open for the respondent-workman to move before the Tribunal on the same issue and at the same time time it was not permissible to the Tribunal to give a go-bye to the findings arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 4756 of 2001. 10. The Respondent-workman has tried to make out a new case and from perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that whatever material is brought in counter-affidavit was not the issue before the Labour Court and the same were never dealt with. The reference itself was bad in law as finding of the Single Judge on the issues had attained finality and in absence of any liberty to the workman to move the Tribunal, the same ought not to have been referred to the Tribunal by the Government. The issue already decided by the Hon'ble High Court cannot be re-adjudicated by the Tribunal when the issues were same and the parties were also same and therefore it is barred by the principles of res judicata. 11. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman is not acceptable to this Court that in absence of any clarity regarding the issue, the same is not barred by re judicata and as the issue of the selection of petitioner on a new post was never considered, rightly the Tribunal passed an order for regularization with consequential benefits. The issue of re judicata fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan and Anr., reported (2004) 1 S.C.C. 68 . Paragraph No. 11 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "11. The principle of rejudicata operates on the court. The issue of re judicata fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board vs. P. Kulothangan and Anr., reported (2004) 1 S.C.C. 68 . Paragraph No. 11 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "11. The principle of rejudicata operates on the court. It is the courts which are prohibited from trying the issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, provided the court trying in subsequent proceeding is satisfied that the earlier court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such court. Here the parties to the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court and the industrial dispute were the same. The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the respondent to rejoin service. The Madras High Court was competent to decide the issue which it did with a reasoned order on merits and after a contested hearing. This was not a case where the earlier proceedings had been disposed of on any technical ground as was the case in Workmen v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal. The "lesser relief of reinstatement which was the subject-matter of the industrial dispute had already been claimed by the respondent in the writ petition. This was refused by the High Court. The correctness of the decision in the writ proceedings has not been challenged by the respondent. The decision was, therefore, final. Having got an adverse order in the writ petition, it was not open to the respondent to re-agitate the issue before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and re-decide the matter in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ proceedings." 12. This Court is of clear view that as the correctness of the decision in the writ proceedings has not been challenged by the respondent, it was not open for the respondent to re-agitate the issue before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was not competent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent-workman and re-decide the matter in face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ proceedings. As the learned Tribunal failed to consider these aspects of the matter and re-adjudicated the matter which was already decided by the High Court, it can be very comfortably said that the orders are perverse. 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid Rules and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the Award dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 36 of 2005 and judgment dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 03 of 2013. 14. Resultantly, writ petitions are hereby allowed.