Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner who is employer in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. has prayed for quashing the award dated December 17, 1991, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in reference case No. 102/88, whereby and whereunder he has held that the action of management in terminating the services of the workman concerned, namely, Sri Ramadhar Singh, is not justified and further directed that the said workman should be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service and his absence from duty shall be treated as leave without pay. 2. It appears that the Central Government, in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal: "Whether the action of the management of BCCL Limited Headquarters, Koyla Bhawan P.O. Koylanagar, Distt. Dhanbad in terminating the services of Shri Ramadhar Singh, Night Guard vide their letter No. BCCL/A(S) P/86/3514 dated July 23-24, 1986 is justified. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled." 3. The case of the petitioner-management, in short, is that the concerned workman committed serious misconduct of disobedience of lawful orders of superiors and also unauthorised absence from duty continuously for more than 10 days without any satisfactory cause. The workman was, therefore, charge-sheeted for misconduct as per Standing Orders. It is alleged by the management that the workman concerned avoided to receive the charge-sheet and ultimately, it was published in the newspaper. The workman then filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The management then held a domestic inquiry. It transpires that the inquiry officer held ex-parte inquiry and after examining the materials on record submitted his report holding that the workman was guilty of misconduct alleged against him. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the competent authority passed final order of dismissal of the workman from service. The matter finally came before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, as aforesaid. The Tribunal at the instance of the management considered the propriety and fairness of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper. The matter finally came before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, as aforesaid. The Tribunal at the instance of the management considered the propriety and fairness of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper. The Tribunal, thereafter, took up the matter for hearing on merits. The petitioner- management adduced evidences both oral and documentary and the workman concerned, though not adduced any oral evidence but filed some documentary evidences in support of his case. The Tribunal finally came to the conclusion that the charges against the workman concerned have not been proved though the charges are not sustainable. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of dismissal of the workman concerned from service. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner-management assailed the award of the Tribunal as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. It was firstly submitted that in the domestic inquiry, the petitioner led evidences but the workman concerned failed to adduce any evidence in support of his case in spite of full opportunity given to him and the domestic inquiry was conducted in the knowledge of the concerned workman. It is submitted that in spite of that the Tribunal without appreciating the facts came to an erroneous finding that the domestic inquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, the workman concerned did not choose to lead any evidence nor be examined himself as a witness and, on the contrary, the management adduced evidences both oral and documentary but the Tribunal has come to an erroneous finding that the charges levelled against the workman have not been proved. 5. From perusal of the award it appears that the concerned workman submitted a written statement denying and disputing each and every allegation made by the management. In support of his defence, the workman filed relevant documents including the medical certificate to show that he was medically unfit to join the duty. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidences came to a finding that the workman concerned was under medical treatment for Angina Pecteria. In support of his defence, the workman filed relevant documents including the medical certificate to show that he was medically unfit to join the duty. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidences came to a finding that the workman concerned was under medical treatment for Angina Pecteria. The Tribunal further found that because of his medical sickness, the workman could not appear in the domestic inquiry and he sent his request to keep the hearing of the domestic enquiry in abeyance. The Tribunal further found that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the workman concerned got intimation about the hearing of the domestic inquiry. It further transpires from the award that the Tribunal found that the workman concerned was not in unauthorised leave. The concluding portion of the award is reproduced hereinbelow: "The inquiry officer has also held that he was absent from duty from June 24, 1985 which was unauthorised. The sponsoring union has stated that the workman concerned was on leave from April 16, 1985 to April 23, 1985 and that he was sick from April 26, 1985. The management has not disputed that the workman concerned was on leave from April 16, 1985 to April 23, 1985 but it has disputed that the workman concerned was on leave from April 16, 1985 to April 23, 1985 but it has disputed that he was sick from April 26, 1985. The medical certificate issued by the doctor indicates that the workman concerned was sick. That being so, it can be held that he was sick from April 26, 1985 and he submitted medical certificate dated December 26, 1985 along with his application dated December 27, 1985. This being so, it cannot be held that he absented from duty without any satisfactory cause. Accordingly, I hold that the charges against the workman concerned on both these counts i.e. for (i) disobedience of lawful order of the superiors and (ii) unauthorised absence from duty from April 24, 1985 are not sustainable. Hence, the order of dismissal clamped on the concerned workman with effect from July 23-24, 1986 must be set aside and he should be reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of his dismissal from service. His absence from duty from April 24, 1985 be treated as leave without pay." 6. Hence, the order of dismissal clamped on the concerned workman with effect from July 23-24, 1986 must be set aside and he should be reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of his dismissal from service. His absence from duty from April 24, 1985 be treated as leave without pay." 6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal is based on findings of fact and there is no perversity or patent illegality in the award. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not supposed to re-appreciate the entire evidences in order to find out the factual discrepancy or illegality in the award. As noticed above, the Tribunal after considering the documentary evidences adduced by the parties came to a finding that the absence of the workman was not unauthorised inasmuch as admittedly, he was on medical leave. In that view of the matter it would not be fair and proper to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.