JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Both these Writ Petitions have arisen out of the common award dated 02.12.2015 passed in Ref. Case No. 70 of 2000 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby and where under, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the dispute referred to it in affirmative in part in respect of the workman- Bansidhar Mahato only. 3. The Management has filed W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 against the portion of the order by which the reference has been answered in affirmative in respect of Bansidhar Mahto while the writ petition W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 has been filed by the rest of the workmen in respect of whom the reference has been answered in negative by the Tribunal. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad: “Whether the action of the management of Kedla Washery, M/S CCL, P.O. Kedla, Dist.-Hazaribagh in not regularizing Sri Dhaneshwar Mahato, J.B. Patel, Gouri Shankar Mahto, Sarjoo Prasad, Dahan Dhal, Gour Chandra Behra, Rajendra Sharma, Naresh Prasad, Gurudayal Mahto, Pagu Manjhi, Ramesh Mahto, Bansidhar Mahto, Lako Oraon, Rajesh Mahto and K.V. Rao in permanent roll of CCL and Non-payment of wages as per National coal wages Agreement is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?” 5. The case of the workmen concerned is that the workmen have been performing the job of plant cleaning, repairing and maintenance work continuously in the permanent and prohibited nature of job since 1996 and they were rendering the services and producing goods for the benefits of the Management and as such they have worked more than 240 days in each calendar year. As the Management threatened the concerned workmen to remove from duty hence, they raised the industrial dispute. 6. The case of the Management is that no employer and employee relation exist between the Management and the concerned persons. The Management awarded the contract for construction of washery as well as installation and commissioning of the washery to give its full capacity at the stipulated rate fixed in the contract awarded on turnkey basis. 6. The case of the Management is that no employer and employee relation exist between the Management and the concerned persons. The Management awarded the contract for construction of washery as well as installation and commissioning of the washery to give its full capacity at the stipulated rate fixed in the contract awarded on turnkey basis. The contractor engaged sub-contractors in construction job of civil nature and for installation of machineries. The Management submitted that sponsoring union neither furnished the particulars of the concerned workmen nor submitted their identity card or employment cards to substantiate the claim of them being engaged. 7. In support of its case, the workman examined two witnesses. WW1-Dhaneshwar Mahto categorically admitted that he did not have any identity card to show that he was working with the Management-CCL. WW2-Banshidhar Mahto stated in his cross-examination that he has not filed appointment letter issued by the contractor though the same is with him but subsequently he was engaged by the Management. He filed identity card issued by the contractor which also bore the signature of the official of the Management though the identity card was issued by the contractor. 8. The learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad considered that except the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 no other workers filed any identity card and WW1 stated that he does not have any identity card and held that since only one identity card has been filed in this case hence, Bansidhar Mahto is to be regularized as workman under the Management and other workmen who have been named in the schedule of the reference is not entitled to get any relief. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 that the Tribunal committed a perversity in directing regularization of Bansidhar Mahto as workman under the impression that absorption of a contract labour engaged in a prohibited category of job is automatic but in view of the principle of law settled by the Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SAIL vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 , in which the judgment of AIR India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 has been overruled, paragraph no. 125 (3) of which reads as under: “125. vs. United Labour Union & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 has been overruled, paragraph no. 125 (3) of which reads as under: “125. xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” 10. It has been categorically held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned and in view of the same, the award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to the workman- Bansidhar Mahto is a perverse one hence, the same be set aside. 11. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned and in view of the same, the award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to the workman- Bansidhar Mahto is a perverse one hence, the same be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 submits by relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Employers in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and Another, 2015 (4) JCR 673 (Jhr) wherein the coordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 494 , wherein in the facts of that case, ONGC limited initially employed the workman of that case through contractors and upon coming into force of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, abolishing contract labour for the posts of watch and ward, dusting and cleaning jobs in the corporation, the concerned workmen were employed as per the settlement arrived at between the trade union and the management of the corporation but subsequently, upon entrusting the security work to the Central Industrial Security Force, their services were dispensed with, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India taking into consideration its earlier decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 as also the judgment in the case of Ajay Pal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, wherein, it was observed that corporation cannot deny the rights of the workman by taking plea of their initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as in the facts of that case, though the Management took the plea that workman concerned were engaged by the contractor but the Management did not even examine the contractor to prove that the concerned workmen were employees of the contractor, the coordinate Bench considered the said employees to be the employees of the management and did not find any infirmity in the award impugned before it dated 18.09.2000 in Reference Case No. 2 of 1994 and Reference Case No. 59 of 1992 and submits that the judgment of SAIL vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) is not a bar in absorption of the respondent-workman of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 as ordered by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 submits that the case of the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 who are also the similarly placed workmen as that of Bansidhar Mahto hence, the learned Tribunal has committed a perversity by not directing their regularization as workmen under the Management as was ordered in respect of co-workman- Bansidhar Mahto. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 that the Tribunal failed to consider the attendance register for the period 1997 to January, 1998 on 08.01.2002 and subsequently on 08.02.2002 an application was filed for calling attendance register for the period 1999 to till date from the Management. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad is perverse therefore, the petitioner be also directed to be in the permanent service of the Management. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 6 that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that there is no employer and employee relationship between the Management and the workmen. At the best the Management could be termed as principal employer even as per the admitted case of the petitioner. So assuming for the sake of argument that they were engaged as contract workers in a plant cleaning job which is prohibited for contract labours; in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SAIL vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) they are not entitled automatically in the permanent employment of the Management as at no point of time they were direct employees of the Management. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 that such an order of regularization would amount to creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible in law. Hence, it is submitted that W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 being without any merit be dismissed. 14. 4 to 6 that such an order of regularization would amount to creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible in law. Hence, it is submitted that W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, the admitted case of the workmen is that they were the workers engaged by the Management through the contractor Trisma Construction till January, 1999 when the industrial dispute was raised by submitting an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 18.01.1999 though the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 took a plea that after some time he was engaged by the Management but such pleading of the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 namely Bansidhar Mahto is contrary to his own evidence put forth on his behalf which goes to show that he was engaged through the contractor Trisma Construction. 15. The fact of this case is different from the fact of Employers in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and Another (supra) and ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others (supra) as in those two cases the workmen were engaged directly by the Management concerned and not through contractors. So the judgment of SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) was not applicable in those cases but here in this case, it being the admitted case of the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 and the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 that they were labourers employed through the contractors as is evident from the copy of the attendance register filed by them as well as identity card of Bansidhar Mahto which goes to show that the identity card was issued by the contractor and was only counter signed by the officer of the Management which could not have been the case of the said workman-Bansidhar Mahto; had he been engaged by the Management. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the judgment of SAIL vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) is applicable in the facts of this case. 16. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the judgment of SAIL vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) is applicable in the facts of this case. 16. In view of the discussions made above; assuming for the sake of argument that they were engaged through the contractor, their absorption cannot be automatic in the permanent employment of the Management. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal committed a perversity so far as the portion of the judgment by which it directed regularization of the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 namely Bansidhar Mahto and as in view of the judgment in SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers (supra) the workmen having admittedly being engaged by the contractor, their absorption cannot be automatic even if it is established that they were engaged under the contractor, their absorption cannot be directed by the Tribunal. 18. Under such circumstances, the W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 is allowed and the portion of the award dated 02.12.2015 passed in Ref. Case No. 70 of 2000 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad so far as it relates to the regularization of respondent-workman-Bansidhar Mahto is quashed and set aside but so far as the W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 is concerned; as already discussed above, the workmen being not entitled to automatic absorption as permanent employee of the Management, W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 being without any merit is dismissed. 19. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.