Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) through its Personal Manager challenging an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 158 of 1986. The said award is dated December 9, 1988. By the said award respondent workman Shiv Shankar Tiwary has been reinstated in service with back wages and other benefits available to him from May 1,1984. 2. The reference which was sent for adjudication before the said Tribunal is as follows: "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwary, Cashier, Bihta Branch with effect from May 1,1984 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" The notice of termination dated May 1,1984 which was issued by the said bank and as a result of which respondent No. 3 was dismissed has also been quoted in the said award. The contents of the said notice is set out below: "(i) Your failure in written test for absorption of Temporary employees held on January 20,1974. (ii) Avoiding wilfully to appear in the writ- ten test for absorption of temporary employees held on October 3, 1982 inspite of the fact that you were advised about the test well in advance. In this connection, arrangements are in hand to pay you the retrenchment compensation in terms of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act before the expiry of the notice period." 3. In the award all the material facts which were relevant for adjudication have been set out and noted. It also appears from the facts noted in the said award that against the said notice initially a writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3 before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1984 but this Court refused to interfere with the said writ petition and dismissed the same with an observation that the workman concerned may seek remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated April 24,1984. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal was approached on the basis of the reference set out above. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal was approached on the basis of the reference set out above. As noted above, in the said award the material facts have been set out and discussed and after setting out the relevant facts, the .Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the findings that it was necessary for the concerned workman to qualify in the test for being regularised or made permanent in the Bank s services. However, after reaching the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer while dealing with the reasons contained in the notice of termination came to the conclusion that the plea of Respondent No. 3 that he was unable to appear in the test held on October 30,1982 by the said Bank is a justified plea. In coming to the said conclusion, the findings reached by the said Tribunal are set out below: "Admittedly the concerned workman was on leave when he had received the notice of the test to be held on October 3,1982. The management has stated in para 9 of the written statement that the concerned workman had submitted medical certificate on resuming duties after test was over. It appears therefore, that the concerned workman had filed a medical certificate regarding his illness and as such the ground of termination of the concerned workman that he was wilfully avoiding to appeal in the written statement for absorption of temporary employees held on October 30,1982 does not appear to be sound conclusion arrived at by the management. There is no evidence in the case on the part of the management to show that the concerned workman had wilfully avoided to appear in the test on the contrary it is admitted that the concerned workman had submitted a medical certificate before the management to show that he was ill and as such he could not appear in the test. The said ground of termination of the services of the concerned workman, therefore, cannot be sustained and cannot be said to be a good ground for termination of the services of the concerned workman." 4. The Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal also dealt with other grounds mentioned in the order of termination, namely, failure of the concerned workman to pass the written test held on January 20, 1974. The Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal also dealt with other grounds mentioned in the order of termination, namely, failure of the concerned workman to pass the written test held on January 20, 1974. In respect of the said fact, the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the conclusion that even after the workmans failure to pass the said test, the Management of the said Bank allowed the concerned workman to continue in the job till another test examination is held and on this fact the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the Management of the said Bank did not decide to terminate the services of the concerned workman because of his failure to pass the said test held on January 10, 1974 and thus came to the following findings. The relevant conclusion on this aspect is set out below: "It appears therefore, that the management did not contemplate to terminate the services of the concerned workman on the ground that he had failed in the test held on January 20,1974 and, therefore, the management allowed him to continue in the Job. If the management was keen in terminating the Services of the concerned workman because of his failure to pass the test held on January 20, 1974, the management could have terminated the services of the concerned workman soon after he joined on August 5,1981 after the payment of retrenchment compensation as contemplated in Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act. The fact that the management allowed the concerned workman to continue in the job till another test examination is held shows that the management did not like to terminate the services of the concerned workman because of his failure to pass the test held on January 20,1974. The termination of the services of the concerned workman on the ground as stated in the notice that as he had failed in the written test for absorption of temporary employees held on January 20,1974 is, therefore, not justified." 5. Apart from the aforesaid two conclusions on the question of payment of compensation under Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) also the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation which was offered to the concerned workman i.e. Rs. Apart from the aforesaid two conclusions on the question of payment of compensation under Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) also the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation which was offered to the concerned workman i.e. Rs. 4,094.42 P. was certainly inadequate and was not the compensation which was to be offered under Sec. 25-F of the said Act and in reaching the said conclusion the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the finding which is set out below: "W.W.,1 is the concerned workman who has stated that he was getting emoluments of Rs. 2,200 per month at the time his services were terminated. The management has not produced any evidence to show that the concerned workman was not getting the said emoluments. If he reckons Rs. 2,200 as salary per month of the concerned workman, 15 years of his continuous service would entitle the concerned workman of the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 16,500 (1 /2 of Rs. 2,200 per month x 15= Rs. 16,500). It may be that the above figure is not fully correct but from the evidence it has not been rebutted, it appears that the amount of retrenchment compensation would come near about the same amount which will be more than Rs. 4,094.42.P. " 6. After reaching the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of services of respondent No. 3 cannot be held to be justified and it will be deemed that the concerned workman continued in the services of the said Bank from the alleged date of termination of his services and the concerned workman will be entitled to all his back wages. After coming to the said finding and setting aside the order of termination of the concerned workman, the Presiding Officer gave liberty to the Management of the said Bank to make arrangement for holding a test of the concerned workman and further made it clear that if the workman is found to have qualified in the test, he may be regularised but in case the workman does not qualify, the management will be at liberty to retrench the concerned workman after fully complying with the provision of Sec. 25-F of the said Act. 7. 7. The management of the said Bank instead of utilising the said liberty granted to them under the impugned award dated December 9, 1988, challenged the said Award before this Court and the matter is pending before this Court since 1989 and for all these days, respondent No. 3 the concerned workman has not been paid anything even though the Tribunal has held that his order of termination is not justified and quashed the same. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has considered the relevant facts and materials in the case in their correct perspective, and it cannot be said that in reaching the conclusion as pointed out above, the Presiding Officer has acted either unreasonably or has committed any act of illegality. 9. It is trite to repeat that the power of the writ Court to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in an award are rather limited. Unless, the findings arrived are patently absurd or are based on no evidence, the writ Court will not interfere with those findings even if the writ Court is tentatively of the view that on the same facts it would have reached a different conclusion. 10. Going by the aforesaid well known parameters of interference in these matters, this Court declines to interfere with the award given by the Tribunal inasmuch as it holds, as noted above, that the findings are not vitiated by any material illegality or any error in the decision making process. This writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that a statutory authority like the said Bank which is also to act as a model employer and which is also an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should not have initiated this proceeding; on the other hand the said Bank should have acted in terms of the liberty given in the said Award. Taking all these facts into account, this Court dismisses this writ petition with cost which is assessed at Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand) to be paid by the said Bank in favour of the respondent workman within a period of one fortnight from the date of reinstatement of the said workman. The petitioner Bank is directed to act in terms of the said award forthwith.