ORDER 1. By the Court.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st April, 1997 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 1160 of 1996 (R) whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award passed by Presiding Officer. Labour Court. Dhanbad in Reference case No. 7 of 1991. 2. The admitted facts which have not been disputed are as under : 3. The appellant-workman, was appointed as a Peon in 1955 by the Fertilizer Corporation of India (in short FCI). In 1967 F.C.I. was split up into two units, one being Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited and other Project and Development India Limited. Services of the Workman was transferred from F.C.I. to Project and Development India Limited (in short PDIL). 4. It appears that his service record was opened in 1955 wherein the date of birth was recorded as 1932. According to the date of birth recorded in the service record the workman was to retire from the service with effect from 31.12.1989. In the year 1981, the workman submitted matriculation certificate /marks-sheet on the basis of which he was granted increment by the respondent Management. However, the Management received confidential information to the effect that several employees were enjoying benefit of extra increment by producing false and fabricated certificates in which the name of the concerned workman was also cited as an employee. The Management thereafter verified the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner from the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board. Patna. On verification it was found that the matriculation certificate/marks-sheet was forged and fabricated document. The Management thereafter issued charge-sheet against the workman in 1984 asking him to submit his reply but the workman did not submit any reply. Taking into consideration of the fact that the workman was to retire very shortly, a sympathetic view was taken and instead of dismissing from service, a punishment of recovery of increment was passed. Thereafter the petitioner procured a school leaving certificate from the Head Master of Hariji Uphar Uchha Vidyalaya on 25.4.1989 and again racked up the dispute about his date of birth. In the school leaving certificate obtained by the workman his date of birth is mentioned as 31.1.1937. The Management again deputed an officer to visit the school to find out the admission register of 1947 but the Head Master could not show the admission register. In the school leaving certificate obtained by the workman his date of birth is mentioned as 31.1.1937. The Management again deputed an officer to visit the school to find out the admission register of 1947 but the Head Master could not show the admission register. The petitioner was accordingly superannuated in 1995. However, the workman raised industrial disputes by directly approaching the Assistant Labour Commissioner as well as Conciliation Officer to refer the dispute to the Industrial Dispute Tribunal. The workman thereafter succeeded in getting the following dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication :-- "Whether retirement from service of Shri. Braj Kishore Singh. Senior Technical 633/500 with effect from 31.11.1989 by the Management of Project and Development India Ltd., Sindri, Dhanbad is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?" 5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the Management as also by the workman regarding the finding that when the workman raised dispute with regard to his age, he should have been medically examined by the Management. As because of the report of the medical examination was not produced by the Management before the Tribunal, it come to a conclusion that either the workman was not medically examined or the Management did not send the workman for medical examination for obvious reason. Accordingly the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman. 6. The learned single Judge held that the finding of the Tribunal was perverse in law inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to take notice of matriculation certificate/marks-sheet submitted by the workman which was found to be forged and as such charge-sheet was issued to him. The learned single Judge further held that the conduct of the workman shows that in order to get extension of service period he adopted some unfair means but the Management took a humanitarian ground by not dismissing him from service, as he was to retire very soon. With these findings, the learned single Judge set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. We have heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant workman and Mr. K.B. Sinha, senior counsel appearing for the Management and also gone through the award passed by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge. With these findings, the learned single Judge set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. We have heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant workman and Mr. K.B. Sinha, senior counsel appearing for the Management and also gone through the award passed by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge. At the very outset, we observe that when admittedly the workman submitted forged and fabricated matriculation certificate/marks- sheet, he ought to have been dismissed from service. However, the Management took a very lenient view because of the fact that he was to retire in 1989 and passed order for recovery of the increment given to him on the basis of matriculation certificate/marks-sheet. In spite of the aforesaid punishment in 1989, at the verge of the retirement the workman raised industrial disputes, that too, not in accordance with the procedure provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. In our opinion, the tribunal has committed serious illegality in ignoring the punishment imposed upon the workman on the basis of submission of forged and fabricated matriculation certificate/marks-sheet in order to get the benefit of increment. We are in full agreement with the finding recorded by the learned single Judge. In our opinion, also the award passed by the Tribunal is perverse in law and was rightly set aside by the learned single Judge. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.