JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. As both the cases are similar in nature, common question of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Shri Sohan Bouri and Shri Puran Chand Bouri, both Minor Leader under Moo- nidih Project of M/s BCCL were procee- ded departmen tally, separately and were dis missed from service vide two orders No. 89/2118 and 89/2120 both dated 24/27 September, 1989. On such dismissal, at the instance of the workmen, the Central Government from its Ministry of Labour referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Tribunal under clause (d) of sub-sections (1) and (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : In respect of Shri Sohan Bouri : "Whether the action of the Management of Moonidih Project under M/s BCCL in awarding punishment of dismissal to Shri Sohan Bouri. Minor Leader under Order No. NO/PO/Per/Dismiss-al/89/2118, dated 24/27.9.1989 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" In respect to Shri Puran Chand Bouri : "Whether the action of the Management of Moonidih Project under M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Puran Chand Bouri. Miner/Loader under dismissal Order No. NND/20/Per/Dismissal/89/2120, dated 24/27.9.1989 is justified? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 3. Both the references were registered as reference No. 219 of 1990 and reference No. 218 of 1998. respectively. They were answered and awarded in favour of the workman, by two separate awards, dated 30th January. 1992 and 7th February. 1992. respectively. 4. To appreciate the case it is necessary to refer the charge(s) as were framed against both the workmen therein, allegations were made relating to obtaining employment by furnishing wrong Informatlon(s) and false statement(s). Misconduct was alleged in terms with clause 17(i)(a) and 17(i)(o) of the Certified Standing Order. The charges against both the workmen were almost similar, which reads as follows : In respect to Sohan Bouri : "Your were appointed as Temp. Minor Leader in the year 1986. At the time of appointment you submitted papers mentioning therein that you are "son of Sri Buja Bouri of village Gopinathpur, Post Lalpur. Distt. Dhanbad. But in the family details submitted by Sri Buja Bouri who is an employee of Moonidih Project. Your name is not recorded as his son. Minor Leader in the year 1986. At the time of appointment you submitted papers mentioning therein that you are "son of Sri Buja Bouri of village Gopinathpur, Post Lalpur. Distt. Dhanbad. But in the family details submitted by Sri Buja Bouri who is an employee of Moonidih Project. Your name is not recorded as his son. Further, one witness who had signed on your verification roll has also given in writing that you are not son of Sri Buja Bouri. This shows that at the time of employment you have wrong information regarding your fathers name and got employment by furnishing false information." Your above acts constitute serious misconduct under Clause 17(i)(a) and 17(1)(o) of the Certified Standing Order applicable to Moonidih Project which reads as under :" In respect of Puran Chand Bouri : "You were appointed as Temp. Minor Leader in the year 1986. At the time of appointment you submitted papers mentioning therein that you are a son of Dhanu Bouri of village Gopinathpur. P.O. Lalpur. Distt. Dhanbad. But the family details submitted by Sri Dhanu Bouri an employees of Moonidih. in service except from your name is not recorded as son. Further, one witness who had signed on your verification roll has also given in writing that you are not son of Sri Dhanu Bouri. This shows that at the time of appointment you gave wrong information regarding your fathers name, and got employment by furnishing false information. Your above acts constitute serious misconduct under Clauses 17(1)(a) and 17(i)(a) of the Certified Standing Order applicable to Moonidih Project, which reads as under :" 5. Admittedly the workmen, Sohan Bouri is not the son of Buja Bouri, but of Sri Fuleri Bouri. Similarly, the workman Puran Chand Bouri is not son of Sri Dhanu Bouri, but of Haradhan Bouri. In their applications submitted at the time of appointment wrong name(s) of father were mentioned. The fathers name of the workman Sohan Bouri was shown as Buja Bouri in place of Fulari Bouri. Similarly, the fathers name of workman Puran Chand Bouri was shown as Dhanu Bouri. The aforesaid admitted facts when came to the notices of the Management. Departmental proceedings were initiated against both of them and facts having "found proved, were dismissed from services. 6. Similarly, the fathers name of workman Puran Chand Bouri was shown as Dhanu Bouri. The aforesaid admitted facts when came to the notices of the Management. Departmental proceedings were initiated against both of them and facts having "found proved, were dismissed from services. 6. The case of the management, in both the cases is that the Management decided in the year 1986-87 to give relief to permanent residents of Coalfield Areas by providing employment taking into consideration of the general damage caused to surface land by mining operations, apart from creation of en- vironmental pollution. The workmen in question produced false certificate(s) based on false declaration of fathers name, home address etc. and they managed to secure employment. In the year 1989 on detection of the fact that the concerned workmen were not the son(s) of person(s) as were declared by them at the time of appointment, they having taken advantage of the employment on the basis of wrong name(s) of father(s) and wrong residential address were charge- sheeted and having accepted such guilt were rightly dismissed. 7. The workman Sohan Bouri on the other hand specifically took plea that he was appointed as Minor/Loader in normal course after interview and selection, he had not taken any advantage on the basis of name of father, nor the employment was provided on the basis of residents. Further, according to said Sohan Bouri, he is in illiterate and member of Scheduled Caste Community. His father name is Fulari Bouri and he was residing with his relative. Sri Buja Bouri, which was sown as his present address. The mistake was accepted as bona fide and not intentional, the name of local guardian. Sri Buja Bouri having wrongly written by in his application form in place of his father. No took specific defence that he being illiterate, having given thumb impression on such application, could not verify the statement as was made in the application form, 8. Similar stand was taken by the workmen Puran Chand Bouri who specifically took plea that his appointment was made against permanent vacancy as per requirement of BCCL. in accordance with law. Neither he secured the employment in place of Dhanu Bouri, nor he has provided with such employment as a dependent of Dhanu Bouri. Similar stand was taken by the workmen Puran Chand Bouri who specifically took plea that his appointment was made against permanent vacancy as per requirement of BCCL. in accordance with law. Neither he secured the employment in place of Dhanu Bouri, nor he has provided with such employment as a dependent of Dhanu Bouri. Before the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court he accepted that is father name is Maradhan Bouri and Sri Dhanu Bouri is his father-in-law. The mistake, if any. is because of his illiteracy, being Scheduled Caste and the person who filled up the application form night have written the name of father- in- law Dhan Bouri in place of his father Haradhan Bouri. 9. The stand as were taken by the workmen was accepted by the learned Presiding Officer on appreciation of evidence. 10. It will be evident from the charge-sheet and the stand taken by the Management that the allegation was made on suspension suspicion different name(s) of father having shown by the workmen in their application form. Though the allegation of furnishing false information/statements made on the ground for obtaining employment was levelled but the management failed to bring on record any substantiate (sic) the motive. The learned Presiding Officer taking the consideration the fact that the employment was not granted to the workmen being son or a dependent of any individual, the workmen having been appointed after due interview and selection and taking into consideration the fact that the workmen were illiterate and belong to Harijan Community held their action as bona fide mistake, the forms having filled up in English. 11. Learned counsel for the Management while accepted that such information can be termed as bona fide mistake, but failed to lay hand on any evidences to show that the workmen obtained employment being dependent of a particular person. 12. In the circumstances, the finding of learned Presiding Officer being based on evidence well discussed and in absence of any evidence to contrary no interference is required. Both the writ applications having no merit are dismissed. 13. However, in the facts and circumstances, there will he no order as to costs. 14. Applications dismissed.