2025:JHHC:35931 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 2919 of 2018 Employers in relation to the management of Divisional Railway, Sonepur Division through it’s the Divisional Railway Manager, viz. Sri. Atulya Sinha, aged about 51 years, r/o Bunglow No. T/10 Barbattu Colony, P.O. +P.s. Sonepur, Dist-Saran, Bihar. … Petitioner V E R S U S Their workmen represented by the president of Rashtriya Bhrastachar Mukti Morcha, S-75/76 Gali No. B, Kamal Bhawan, 2nd Floor (Brijdham), Vishwas Park, New Delhi-39. … … Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Ayush, A.C. to ASGI For the Respondent-State : Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (Mines)II 27/27.11.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the Award dated 19.6.2017 passed in Reference Case No. 16 of 2015 by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, wherein the action of the petitioner as against Vidya Sagar Thakur and 274 other badli workers has been held to be illegal, and direction has been given to regularise their services without any back wages. 2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has vehemently argued that the impugned order is perverse and suffers from gross illegality. He further made following submissions: (i) The members of the Respondent were working for the Petitioner as badli workers. (ii) The termination of the workers was in the year 1990, and the list in the impugned award containing the name, date of birth and other details of the workmen would reflect that some individuals who claim to be workmen were less than ten years old on the date of the alleged termination. (iii) He has made specific reference to the names contained at serial numbers 131, 135, 138, 147, 149, 157, 184, 186, 189, 190, 131, 194, 197 and 216 of the table forming part of the 2025:JHHC:35931 2 Award. (iv) The list of workmen wherein their age is less than ten years as of 1990 shows that the Award has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and without recording of proper evidence, thus making the award perverse. (v) No information pertaining to the proceeding was ever given to the Petitioner; as such, it was unable to present its case before the Ld. Tribunal. 3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the date of birth may have been wrongly typed, and such typographical errors could not render the entire Award to be illegal. He further submits that despite service of proper notice, the petitioner-management chose to remain absent and did not file a proper response before the Ld. Tribunal, and as such, the issues raised in the writ cannot be raised as this stage. 4. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and after perusing the records, it is evident that the genesis of the dispute seems to be the removal of approximately 274 badli workmen. The case of the Respondent workmen is that having completed 120 days' attendance, they had a legitimate right to be regularized as per the Industrial Disputes Act 1947; and instead of regularizing them, the management terminated the services without any notice. 5. The record reflects that after reference, the Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 Dhanbad, compiled the list of the aggrieved workmen. This list was prepared as per the details provided by the respondent workmen. The list contains the name, father’s name, address, date of birth and workplace of the said workmen. 6. Having gone through this list, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. The list contains references to certain individuals whose date of birth, as per the list, would suggest that the individuals were between 1 to 12 years old on the date of the termination of the services. (i.e. in the year 1990) This shows that the 2025:JHHC:35931 3 list submitted by the respondent workmen was prepared without proper diligence, and the tribunal seems to have merely copied the list submitted by the respondent workmen without proper scrutiny and in a routine manner. 7. Even though there was no representation made by the petitioner before the tribunal, it was the duty of the tribunal to ensure that the beneficiaries of its Award are those whose claims are legitimate in the eye of the law. The tribunal ought to have shown proper diligence and care while exercising its quasi-judicial powers. It is unreasonable to even assume that the age of the individual who claims to be a workman would be between the age of 1 to 12 years on the date of their termination (i.e., in the year 1990). 8. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that this error in the Award makes it perverse, as it shows there was no application of mind by the tribunal while passing the award. In light thereof, the Award is hereby set aside and is remitted back to the tribunal for de novo adjudication. 9. Considering the time which has lapsed during the pendency of this writ petition, the tribunal is hereby directed to issue fresh notice upon the concerned parties upon the receipt of this order. The Tribunal is further directed to ensure that a fresh order is passed with respect to all factual and legal points, after giving ample opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties. 10. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed with the above observation. Pending I. As, if any, stand closed. 11. Let the copy of this order and the records be sent back to the concerned Tribunal. (Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 03/12/2025