2026:JHHC:6052 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 1638 of 2012 -- The workmen of Gopalichak Colliery of Putkee Balihari Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. represented through Gopal Prasad, Son of Late Mandan Lal, authorised representative of Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh and President Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh at near C.M.P.F. office Jagjiwan Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad .. Petitioner Versus The employers in relation to the Gopalichak Colliery of Putkee Balihari Area of M/s. BCCL represented the General Manager, Putkee Balihari Area, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. District Dhanbad ..Respondent -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr.Shubham Malviya, Advocate -- 07/04.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application is directed against the Award dated 02.06.2011 passed by learned Presiding officer, CGIT (No. 2) at Dhanbad in Reference case no. 116 of 1998; whereby the learned Tribunal has held that denial of regularization of services of Sri Bharat Mahato and 82 others by the Management of Gopalichak Colliery of BCCL is justified. 3. The Government of India by its power has referred the case under Section 10(1)(d) of I.D.Act,1947 on the following issues to be decided by the learned Tribunal: “Whether the denial of regularization of the services of Sri Bharat Mahato and 75 others ( as per the list enclosed) by the Management of Gopalichak Colliery, BCCL is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled.?” 2026:JHHC:6052 2 4. The case of the sponsoring Union was that the Respondent-BCCL was under an obligation to abide by Policies/Guidelines and Statues framed by the Central Government towards its workers and as per Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the employment of contract labour in the categories of raising- cum-selling coal and other jobs etc. have been prohibited. However, the employers engaged these workmen in the job of Tyndels, underground roof supporting, cutting and drifting of coal, lime packing and fitting, coal loading, underground cleaning etc. at Gopalichak Colliery of BCCL. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that definition of employer given in the I. D. Act, is an inclusive one, if the workmen, as a matter of fact, were employed with the employer to work in their premises and which fact is found established; the respondent-employer cannot escape its liability. He further relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corp. Ltd. - versus- their workmen reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 109 paras 12 to 16), and also as held in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -versus-CGIT, 2008(118) FLR 1176 (Cal.H.C) (DB). 6. From the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal after going through the contention of both the parties has declined to award in favour of the workmen by holding as under: “12. Whereas the contention of Mr. B.M.Prasad, Ld. Advocate for the management is that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 2026:JHHC:6052 3 (CB) in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) 2001, it has been held with reference to Article 14 and 16 related to equality in employment that there is no status of contractual labour where there is no relationship of the employer and the employees, and such is the present case under adjudication. 13. On consideration of the preceding discussed facts, I find that in the instant case no relationship of employer and employees has been established from any angle which is a pre-requisite to the regularisation of the alleged workmen. In reference to Section 10 of the Prohibition of Employment of the Contract Labour, I find that it is settled law that in consequence of the issuance of notification under Section 10(1) of the CL(RA) Act, it has been observed what is true of a worker could not be true of a contract labour. This being the final word on the subject as on today, so the contention of the aforesaid Ld. Counsel for the Union concerned cuts no ice with me. 14. In view of aforesaid findings, I don't have any hesitation to hold that the claim of the Union for the regularisation of the alleged workmen in lack of proof of the relationship of master and servant between both the parties appears to be quite baseless. Hence, it is held that the denial of regularisation of the services of Shri Bharat Mahato and 82 others (as per the list enclosed) by the management of Gopalichak Colliery, BCCL is quite justified. So they are not entitled to any relief.” 7. As a matter of fact, in para-7 itself, the learned Tribunal has categorically held that the workmen have not got any pay slip from the Management in order to draw their wages. So the claim of the workmen as per their statement about the receipt of their appointment letter in the year 1990, I.D Card and their names and particulars having been recorded in Form-B Register by the Management being un-pleaded as well as in lack of their such proof appears to be baseless. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not rebutted these facts. As a matter of fact, in the case of regularization, the Hon’ble Apex Court way back in the year 2011 itself, in the case of General Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lal and another 1 has given two tests to find out as to whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal 1 (2011) 1 SCC 635 2026:JHHC:6052 4 employer. Those two tests are as to whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor and secondly, whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. For brevity, para-10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “10. It is now well settled that if the industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the principal employer and the contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employee and that there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the workman is the direct employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognised tests to find out whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor, and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the Industrial Court answered both questions in the affirmative and as a consequence held that the first respondent is a direct employee of the appellant.” 9. After going through the judgment rendered in the above referred case and after going through the specific finding made in para-7 of the impugned order, this Court does not find any error in the Award. Leaned counsel has failed to point out any other error and has simply relied upon the argument what was made before the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner; hence the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 4rd February, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 12/03/2026 AFR