ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. By a common order dated 04th August 2022, WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 filed by M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short, BSNL) to challenge the award dated 04th July 2014 in Reference Case No. 47 of 2007 and WP(L) No. 5056 of 2015 filed by the workmen aggrieved by a part of the award to the extent that regularisation of the workmen has been ordered in a phased manner spanned over a period of 5 years, have been disposed of. 2. Prior to the filing of WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 against the aforesaid award dated 04th July 2014, the BSNL had filed WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27th January 2021. 3. As WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 was withdrawn by the BSNL, that was the main issue raised by the workmen before the writ Court to set-up a plea that the second writ petition vide WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 filed by the BSNL for the same cause was not maintainable. 4. The aforesaid plea has been accepted by the writ Court with specific reference to the judgment in “Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P. Gawalior and Others” (1987) 1 SCC 5 to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In the order dated 04th August 2022, the writ Court has observed as under : “W.P.(L) No.2535 of 2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha has submitted that petitioner-M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited has earlier preferred writ petition vide W.P.(L) No.3658 of 2015, but the same was withdrawn by petitioner in terms of the order dated 27.01.2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and fresh writ petition has been filed vide W.P.(L) No.2535 of 2021 on 15.07.2021 along with the approval granted by the competent authority i.e., Director (S.R & E). Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has placed reliance upon para-9 of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P. Gwalior, & Ors. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has placed reliance upon para-9 of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P. Gwalior, & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5 and has submitted that the present writ petition is not with regard to writ of habeas corpus or any fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and as such, since the earlier writ petition vide W.P.(L) No.3658 of 2015 has been dismissed at this stage, without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition, as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that though liberty has not been granted but the earlier writ petition vide W.P.(L) No.3658 of 2015 has been dismissed at this stage, meaning thereby that in subsequent stage petitioner can file writ petition and since the approval was subsequently brought, as such, the writ petition is maintainable. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that earlier writ petition was filed but the same was withdrawn as per the instruction at this stage and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra) relevant para-9 which may be profitably quoted hereunder:- “9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao's case is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open.” (Emphasis Supplied) This Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Pending I.A. if, any, stands closed. W.P.(L) No.5056 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has submitted, that in view of dismissal of the writ petition vide W.P.(L) No.2535 of 2021, he does not want to press the instant writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if the writ petition [W.P.(L) No.5056 of 2015] is survives. Considering the same, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if the writ petition [W.P.(L) No.5056 of 2015] is survives.” 6. In WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021, the BSNL has stated the following reasons to file the second writ petition after withdrawal of WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 : “2. In WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021, the BSNL has stated the following reasons to file the second writ petition after withdrawal of WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 : “2. That the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court earlier vide WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 which has been withdrawn by the petitioner on 27-01-2021 to get "Screening Procedure Approval" before challenging the award dated 04-07-2014 in Ref. Case No. 47/2007. 3. That while seeking the ex-post facto approval in accordance with "Screening Procedure" from Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India. during the pendency of WP(L) 3658 of 2015, it has been contended by the Ministry/Department that there is no provision for ex-facto approval of the "Screening Procedure" and hence with the instruction of the department the case WP(L) 3658 of 2015 was withdrawn at that stage (as stated in Para-2 above) and again moved the "Screening Procedure" approval of the competent authority of Ministry of Labour & Employment (MoLE) in accordance with O.M. No. H-52027/8/99-IR (Imp-1) dated. 19-03-1999 & MoLE letter No. Z-13025/08/2019-1S (Imp-1) dated. 02-11-2019. The competent authority of Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE), Govt. of India, by its ID no L-52027/01/2020-IR(Imp-1) dated. 07-05-2021 has concurs its approval in accordance with request of Department of Telecommunication (DOT) as per "Screening Procedure”. Department of Telecommunication (DOT) vide its letter no 225-03/2019-SR dated 12.05.2021 endorses the approval of competent anthority as per "Screening Procedure" for challenging the impugned CGIT Award dated 04.07.2014 before Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand by way of filing Writ Petition. Hence this petition is being filed by Petitioner.” 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the BSNL has made elaborate submissions with reference to the judgments in “Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V.), Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and Others” (2008) 1 SCC 494 , “Ramesh Chandra Sankla and Others v. Viram Cement and Others” (2008) 14 SCC 58 and “Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Anil Garg and Others” (2017) 14 SCC 634 , to contend that the second writ petition filed by the BSNL was maintainable and not barred by any law or the decision in “Sarguja Transport Service”. Per contra, Mr. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that the binding decision in “Sarguja Transport Service” which has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “M/s M. J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others” 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1217 still holds good and while so the order dated 04th August 2022 passed by the writ Court dismissing WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 does not warrant interference of this Court. 8. In Reference Case No. 47 of 2007, the following issue was referred for adjudication by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour and Employment in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: “SCHEDULE Whether the demand of Dainik Bhogi Mazdoor Sangh for regularization of services of Shri Sanjeev Kumar and 109 other workmen, as per Annexure, by the management of BSNL, Ranchi and Daltonganj is legal and justified? If Yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date(s)?” 9. Before the Tribunal, the Management examined two witnesses in support of its stand that the concerned workmen were not engaged by it; they were not engaged in the works of permanent and perennial in nature and; there was no employer-employee relationship. On behalf of the workmen, Sudama Pal has been examined as WW1 to support the reference for their regularisation. The parties have also laid in evidence several documents in support of their respective stands. The Tribunal while considering the materials laid before it has taken note of another proceeding between the parties in which the claim for differential wages raised by the workmen has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court. 10. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal has made the following award: “9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered not to remove labourer who are before this Tribunal supplied by contractors. The BSNL authority is further asked to take at least 20 to 25 persons from the workmen in employment according to seniority in a year and regularized them accordingly within a stipulated period i.e. within 5 years moreover under no circumstance they be removed from service. This is my award.” 11. The BSNL authority is further asked to take at least 20 to 25 persons from the workmen in employment according to seniority in a year and regularized them accordingly within a stipulated period i.e. within 5 years moreover under no circumstance they be removed from service. This is my award.” 11. The proceedings in WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 stretched over 8 dates of hearing in a span of more than 5 years from 08th August 2015 to 27th January 2021. By an order dated 16th October 2015 the records of Reference Case No. 47 of 2007 were called from the Tribunal but the writ petition remained pending for another two years. Thereafter, it was listed on 08th January 2018 at the instance of the BSNL, when I.A. No. 7170 of 2017 filed in WP(L) No. 5056 of 2015 for early hearing was taken up for hearing. 12. On 08th January 2018, the following order has been passed by the writ Court in I.A. No. 7170 of 2017: “The present interlocutory application has been filed for fixing an early date of hearing of the present writ petition, being W.P. (L) No.5056 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition, being W.P.(L) No.5056 of 2015, has been filed by the concerned workmen through the President of Dainik Bhogi Mazdoor Sangh for quashing the part of the award dated 4th July, 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Ref. No.47 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the Central Government has not declared the work being performed by the workmen falling under any prohibited category and, thus, the workmen cannot be regularized. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the learned Tribunal has also ordered not to remove the labourers supplied by the concerned contractors, who were before the learned Tribunal. It has further been held, inter alia, that the BSNL authority should regularize 22-25 workmen in a year as per their seniority within the stipulated period of five years. There is no order of stay passed by this Court against the impugned award. Considering the aforesaid fact, I see no reason to allow the present interlocutory application. Accordingly, I.A. No.7170 of 2017 is dismissed.” 13. There is no order of stay passed by this Court against the impugned award. Considering the aforesaid fact, I see no reason to allow the present interlocutory application. Accordingly, I.A. No.7170 of 2017 is dismissed.” 13. At this stage, the communications through letters dated 26th June 2018 and 09th August 2018 from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India were produced by the workmen to challenge maintainability of the WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 on the ground that the writ petition was filed without seeking permission of the competent authority. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the workmen has referred the order dated 21st October 2020 to support the writ Court's order on the ground that WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 was withdrawn by the BSNL as a ploy to deprive the workmen benefits under the award dated 04th July 2014. 14. On 21st October 2020, the writ Court has passed the following direction : “In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the 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. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. On 01.07.2020, when the case was taken up it was submitted by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel that till date even not a single labourer has been regularized. Though no stay order has been passed by this Court, the petitioner-BSNL has not yet taken any steps for implementation of the Court’s order. Mrs. Mohua Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment. As prayed, by way of last chance, put up this case in the last week of January, 2021 under the same heading. It is made clear that if the petitioner-BSNL does not come forward with specific stand, the case will be heard on its own merit and the Authorities concerned of the BSNL shall be responsible for implementation of Award and shall remain physically present before this Court through Video Conferencing to assist the Court with specific stand of the petitioner-BSNL.” 15. The aforesaid proceedings in WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 disclose that implementation of the award dated 04th July 2014 was not stayed by the writ Court. This is a matter of record that any application for stay was also not pressed by the BSNL. The aforesaid proceedings in WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 disclose that implementation of the award dated 04th July 2014 was not stayed by the writ Court. This is a matter of record that any application for stay was also not pressed by the BSNL. It was in the aforesaid background that on 21st October 2020 the writ Court had issued the direction for taking a decision on implementation of the award and, the BSNL has withdrawn WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 on the very next date of hearing of the said writ petition. 16. The order dated 27th January 2021 passed in WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 reads as under: “18/ 27.01.2021 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. Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that as per the instruction, he wants to withdraw the instant writ petition at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.” 17. Now this is the order dated 27th January 2021 which has become the bone of contention between the parties; whether the second writ petition vide WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 was maintainable. 18. The provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) are not strictly applied in a writ proceeding. However, it is now well-settled that the principles akin to addition of parties, amendment in the pleadings, interim injunction, review etc. are applied in the writ proceedings. Similarly, the rules relating to constructive res judicata and abandonment of the suit or a relief as contained in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC have also been made applicable in the writ proceedings. In “Sarguja Transport Service” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as a matter of public policy a second writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained if the first writ petition was withdrawn without express permission of the Court to file a fresh writ petition. In “Sarguja Transport Service” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as a matter of public policy a second writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained if the first writ petition was withdrawn without express permission of the Court to file a fresh writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further indicated that this practice of filing a second writ petition for the same cause needs to be curbed also to discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting. “Sarguja Transport Service” has been referred to, relied upon and distinguished in subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the BSNL would submit that “Sarguja Transport Service” has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ramesh Chandra Sankla” and now this is beyond the realm of doubt that the judgment in “Sarguja Transport Service” has been delivered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. True, but then, the decision in “Sarguja Transport Service” has not been overruled and still holds the field and as a matter of fact the said decision has been referred in several judgments. And, as a matter of judicial discipline and propriety, the decision in “Sarguja Transport Service” is binding on the High Courts. 19. In “Ramesh Chandra Sankla” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “61. From the above case law, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner to withdraw a petition filed by him. Normally, a court of law would not prevent him from withdrawing his petition. But if such withdrawal is without the leave of the court, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting or continuing the proceedings and he abandons his claim. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier.” 20. In yet another decision, “M.J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd.”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier.” 20. In yet another decision, “M.J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd.”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was raised and abandoned in the first writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn, the principles of constructive res-judicata which is laid down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and which principles are extendable to writ proceedings as well as held by this Court in ‘Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior’ [ 1987 (1) SCR 200 ] would squarely be applicable. 14. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that it is not permissible for the appellant to now raise such arguments. We, thus, do not find any error passed by the High Court which results in the dismissal of this appeal.” 21. There was no application for withdrawal made by the BSNL and WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 has been withdrawn by the learned counsel for the BSNL making oral submissions. This is the policy of law that a litigant should not suffer injury due to some formal defect in the plaint/petition on account of which the suit shall be liable to be dismissed. The provisions under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC provide an opportunity to the litigant to withdraw the suit with liberty of the Court to file a fresh suit. The learned counsel for the BSNL has endeavoured to impress upon the Court that the words “at this stage” in the order dated 27th January 2021 clearly indicate that WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 was withdrawn to meet the objection raised by the workmen that the said writ petition was filed without authority. In our opinion, the decision in “Sarguja Transport Service” shall at once be attracted in this case. In the previous proceeding, the BSNL took several adjournments and when the writ Court insisted on making its stand clear the BSNL cleverly withdrew the writ petition on the next date of hearing. In our opinion, the decision in “Sarguja Transport Service” shall at once be attracted in this case. In the previous proceeding, the BSNL took several adjournments and when the writ Court insisted on making its stand clear the BSNL cleverly withdrew the writ petition on the next date of hearing. The words “at this stage” as said by the learned counsel for the BSNL while making submissions for withdrawal of the writ petition cannot be construed as an express liberty granted by the Court to the BSNL to file a fresh writ petition. The BSNL has not produced any rule or notification in terms of which “Screening Procedure” approval is a mandatory condition the noncompliance of which shall be a fatal defect resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. The objection raised by the workmen in this regard could not have been a ground to withdraw the writ petition. Moreover, the order dated 27th January 2021 does not record any such submission made on behalf of the BSNL to withdraw the writ petition. The proceedings in WP(L) No. 3658 of 2015 provide a clear clue as to why the said writ petition was withdrawn by the BSNL. At that time, the BSNL thought of taking the easy route to wriggle out of the directions passed by the writ Court. 22. This is also in our mind that the writ Court has limited powers to interfere with the award made by the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. Secondly, the very object behind the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has been enacted for settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes has also to be kept in mind. The judgments on the subject including the one in “Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen” (1967) 1 SCR 652 clearly lay down that the object behind Industrial Disputes Act is to maintain industrial peace and harmony and if affirming the award would be in furtherance of achieving the said goal the writ Court should not interfere with the award. This is also true that merely making of the arguable points or raising of the contentious issues are not sufficient reasons to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in appropriate cases the writ Court may decline to interfere in the matter even where the decision may seem prima-facie flawed in law. Mr. This is also true that merely making of the arguable points or raising of the contentious issues are not sufficient reasons to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in appropriate cases the writ Court may decline to interfere in the matter even where the decision may seem prima-facie flawed in law. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the BSNL has tried to pursued this Court by submitting that the award dated 04th July 2014 is so cryptic that perversity in the award is apparent on just a glance at it. However, it is also well-settled that it is not every error in law or of fact which may invite interference of the writ Court in exercise of the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India (refer, “Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals” AIR 1958 SC 1240). 23. With this background of the legal position, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the BSNL that the Tribunal though accepted that there is no notification issued under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, Contract Labour Act) still has issued a direction for regularisation of the workmen. It is well remembered that the powers of the Tribunal to make an award for regularisation of the workmen is not only confined to the cases in which violation of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act has been pleaded. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 confers wide powers and empowers the Tribunal to make an order for regularisation of the workmen in appropriate cases. In the present case, the Tribunal on consideration of the materials laid before it has rendered the award on the premise that the workmen have established a case for regularisation. 24. While the aforesaid considerations are bearing in our mind, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 04th August 2022 passed in WP(L) No. 2535 of 2021 and, accordingly, LPA No. 425 of 2022 is dismissed. However, in view of the nature of dispute raised by the BSNL, we would indicate that execution of the award dated 04th July 2014 must first be done in respect of the workmen who are presently working under the contractor.