ORDER
1. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. The appellant, the Management, challenges the decision of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2263 of 1996(R) dismissing the writ petition filed by it, challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 154 of 1993. The question whether the action of the management in not employing the writ petitioner and two others as per their circular dated 9.5.1986 was justified, was referred to the Tribunal at the instance of the workmen. The further question was that if it was not justified, what relief respondent No. 2 was entitled to. One of the workmen, whose claim was also referred, died during the proceeding. The other workmen, Viswanath Mondal succeeded in getting another reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act and an award was passed in his favour. According to the writ petitioner, that award was accepted by the Management and Viswanath Mondal was absorbed as per circular dated 9.5.1986.
3. The claim of the workman was that he had worked for 87 days, more than 75 days, as de-listed worker, and in the light of a circular dated 4.8.1980, he was entitled to be included as a Badli Miner/Loader. Apparently, such persons were given employment when the regular employees were not available to do the work or when additional work piled up. According to the Management, on 9.5.1986, another circular was issued under which it was permitted to employ Badli workers included as per the 1980 circular and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe as Miner Loaders. Apparently, respondent No. 2 was not taken in by the circular dated 9.5.1986. It was in that context that the dispute was raised. It is the case of the Management that the circular dated 9.5.1986 was also cancelled and there was no system of any Badli worker or Miner Loader, as contemplated by the Circular of 1980 and the circular of 1986.
4. Before the Tribunal, Management raised a contention that respondent No. 2, the workman, had not been employed for more than 75 days so as to entitle him to included in the list prepared as per circular dated 4.8.1980. The workman marked Exhibits Ext. W/1 and W/2 and examined himself. Based on those documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman had discharged duties for 87 days during the period 1973-76 and hence came within the purview of the circular dated 4.8.1980. But, thereafter, the Tribunal noticed that Badli miners/loaders were utilized as substitutes when a usual worker remained absent and respondent No. 2 was entitled only to be enrolled as Badli Miner/Loader and there was no question of any back wages being ordered or being claimed. But the Tribunal proceeded to hold that his entitlement as Badli miner/Loader would be a continuing one without any break. The Management, therefore, was directed to enroll respondent No. 2 as a Badli miner/Loader in continuance of the circular, apparently, dated 4.8.1980 (he has not specified it) giving retrospective effect to that direction but having no right to back wages.
5. We are having some difficulty in understanding what exactly is the award passed by the Tribunal and when asked on this aspect, counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that he also felt some difficulty in understanding it.
6. The Management challenged this award in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge only stated that the findings are based on facts and those findings are arrived at on a correct appraisal of the evidence in the ease and hence no interference is called for. It is argued that even the circular dated 9.5.1986 have subsequently been withdrawn and that even at the time when the award was passed, the circular dated 4.8.1980 was 110 longer in existence. It was submitted that the system of enrolling Badli workers itself had been given up. It is also submitted that the reference was whether the Management was justified in not employing respondent No. 2 as per circular dated 9.5.1986 and what the Tribunal has circular dated 4.8.1980 made effective as regards respondent No. 2. It is, therefore, submitted that the award was not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, strenuously submitted that whatever right that has accrued to the workman on the basis of the circular dated 4.8.1980 has been recognized by the Tribunal in the award under challenge and the learned Single Judge was justified in not. interfering with the findings rendered by the Tribunal which was based on evidence and the main finding was of a fact and not on law. He, therefore, submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal or with the decision of the learned Single Judge.
7. The Tribunal has not discussed what exactly is the right that had accrued to a person whose name finds place in the list of Badli miners/loaders as per circular dated 4.8.1980. The Tribunal has not ordered that the workman concerned be given the benefit of the circular dated 9.5.1986. Therefore, we are not concerned with that question. We are concerned with the question whether the circular dated 4.8.1980 enabling a workman to be included in the list as Badli miner/loader entitled him to employment, as and when regular employee are not present and so long all Badli miners/loaders continue. On that aspect, the Tribunal has relied upon Ext. W/1 and W/2 and the of evidence of workman as WW/2. The finding is that respondent No. 2 was employed as Badli worker for 87 days, more than 75 days, as contemplated by the circular dated 4.8.1980 and the Tribunal held that his name should be included in the list of Badli workers as per the circular dated 4.8.1980. It cannot be said that there is adequate reason to interfere with that findings, but we must clarify that the right conferred on respondent No. 2 by the award, is only for being included in the list of Badli miners/loaders, employed in the absence of regular employees, so long as that system continues or continued. No other right accrues to the workmen based on the award, now passed by the Tribunal.
8. With the above modification or clarification of the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appeal is disposed of.