ORDER 1. At the instance of Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Jharia, the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II at Dhanbad : "Whether the action of the management of Bastacolla Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. P.O. Jharia, district Dhanbad in dismissing Sri Rajendra Singh from the services of the Company w.e.f. 14.5.1989 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. On 10th May, 1999, the tribunal gave award In favour of Rajendra Singh to the effect that he was entitled to an order of reinstatement and that too with full back wages. The management was, therefore, directed to reinstate the concerned workman and pay full back wages. 3. The employers in relation to the Bastacolla Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. challenged the said award vide C.W.J.C. No. 2386 of 1999(R) in this Court, which was dismissed on 2\. 1.2001. Hence, present appeal has been preferred by them. While admitting this Appeal on 12.6.2002 this Court stayed operation of the impugned award. 4. Inspite of valid service of appeal notice, the respondent No. 2, the workman represented by the Secretary, Janta Maz-door Sangh, did not appear to contest the Appeal. 5. Admittedly, Kandru Singh as well as his wife, Phulmani Kamin were employed in Bastacolla Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. at Jharia, Phulmani Kamin died In harness on 14.6.1985. Her husband Kandru Singh on 12.7.1986, had sworn in an affidavit in connection with employment of his son. Haldhar Singh in place of late Phulmani Kamin, which was brought on record and marked Exhibit M/15. In the said affidavit Kandru Singh specifically admitted that he has only one son, Haldhar Singh and a married daughter, namely, Putla Devi and accordingly request was made for consideration of the employment of the said dependent son of Phulmani Kamin. Kandru Singh had occasion to swear another affidavit on the same day, i.e. on 12.7.1986, which was marked as Exhibit 5/1. In the said affidavit, it was admitted that his wife Phulmani Kamin died leaving behind him and her only son, Haldhar Singh and one married daughter, namely, Putla Devi. 6. Kandru Singh had occasion to swear another affidavit on the same day, i.e. on 12.7.1986, which was marked as Exhibit 5/1. In the said affidavit, it was admitted that his wife Phulmani Kamin died leaving behind him and her only son, Haldhar Singh and one married daughter, namely, Putla Devi. 6. Haldhar Singh, son of Kandru Singh, who was examined as MW-2, in his application for employment filed in the year 1985-86 had mentioned the details of the surviving members of deceased Phulmani Kamins family including her husband, son, brother and widow daughter-in-law. Haldhar Singh claimed himself as the only son of Kandru Singh and Phulmani Kamin. Details of family members of Haldhar Singh was also certified by the concerned Gram Mukhia, where Haldhar Singh was shown as the only son of Kandru Singh. 7. Inspite of the overwhelming documentary evidence establishing that Kandru Singh and Phulmani Kamin had only one son, Haldhar Singh, the Tribunal completely ignored the same and not even made a reference thereof in impugned award. Relying upon the oral evidence as mentioned in paragraphs 39 to 41 and ignoring the said vital event, which had taken place after death of Phulmani Kamin, before the application for voluntary retirement was filed by Kandru Singh, the award was given. The admission of Haldhar Singh, who was declared hostile while being examined before the tribunal as MW-2 was not considered in the impugned award. 8. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid materials brought on record before the tribunal were necessary to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the proper conclusion in the matter. 9. We, therefore, set aside the award as well as the impugned order dated 10th May, 1999 (Annexure 11), including the order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2386 of 1999(R) and remit the Reference Case No. 164 of 1991 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II at Dhanbad, for a fresh decision on its own merit and in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merit of the respective cases of the parties. 10. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the above observations/directions. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.