JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi dated 7.8.1996, in Ref. Case No. 7 of 1990, wherein it was held that the dismissal or removal of the concerned workman under Clause 15 (X) of the Standing Order is not valid and legal and that Ext.-E by which name of the concerned workman was struck off from the rolls of the corporation is not legal and justified and thereby the concerned workman is entitled to his salary and all the consequential benefits deeming him to be in service.... . 2. Form the impugned award it appears that the Government of Bihar referred the following disputes for adjudication : "Whether dismissal of Somra Oraon is justified? if not what relief is entitled to and since when? 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 had joined the service of the management of the Corporation on 22.7.1970, as a Mazdoor, and he later upgraded as a Points Man Grad G with effect from 31.5.1978. The concerned workman was absenting himself without any information since 1.5.1984. Since no information was received from his side for grant of leave showing reasonable cause of his absence in terms of the provisions contained in the Certified Standing Order till 25th June, the Deputy Manager informed him of possible consequence with direction to report for duty within three days from the receipt of the letter. Since no reply was received he was again given a chance to report on duty. Accordingly by Issuing of memo No. 1191 dated 12th September, 1984, in which it was clearly mentioned that if he failed to report for duty within one month from the date of issue of the letter, action would be taken to terminate his lien on his appointment as per existing Rules of the Corporation but no reply was received from the concerned workman to join his duty and therefore, finding no alternative, the concerned workman was declared to have lost his lien on appointment in terms of Standing Order No. 15 (X) of the Certified Standing Order of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. vide, Office order No, 173/85 dated 11.7.1985, and copy of the aforesaid office order dated 11.7.1985, was also sent to the concerned workman on his address. 4. 4. According to the petitioner, unauthorized absence constituted the act of misconduct in terms of Standing Order No, 28 (v) of the Certified Standing Order read with Standing Order No. 15 (x) and for such misconduct the punishment of removal from services is warranted under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. However the Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial Dispute and same was referred by the Government of Bihar for adjudication as stated in earlier paragraph. 5. The case of the concerned workman is that unfortunately he all of sudden got mental sickness on 1.5.1984, which subsequently developed and due to that he had to remain under intensive care and treatment of Dr. B.N. Chakravarty a retired Senior Medical Officer of Ranchi Mansik Auroygsala, Kanke w.e.f. 25.5.1984 to 17.8.1988. He kept informed the situation to his Department from time to time and prayed extension of leave through messenger personally which the then Dy. Manager had accepted and always consoled that the workman should take care for his ailment and as soon he is declared fit he should resume his duty. It Is stated that the concerned workman was never served with any letter or notice by the management informing that his service is going to be terminated. To his utter surprise when the concerned workman reported for duty after obtaining fitness certificate on 17.8.1988, he was told that his service has already been terminated on 11.5.1985. 6. The learned Presiding Officer has held that notice issued by the Management to the concerned workman could not be served on the concerned workman and non service of notices sent to the concerned workman on the available address by the management supported the case of the concerned workman regarding his mental ailment and consequently held that since notices were not validly and legally served on the concerned workman in compliance to the provision of Clause 15 (X) of the Standing Order and therefore, the order of dismissal of the concerned workman was not valid and legal. 7. Form the close scrutiny of the impugned award I find that the learned Labour Court has held on the basis of Ext. 4 i.e., medical certificate of Doctor which shows that the concerned workman was being treated for his mental sickness from 25.5.1984, to 17.8.1988, and as such he could not have joined his duty. 7. Form the close scrutiny of the impugned award I find that the learned Labour Court has held on the basis of Ext. 4 i.e., medical certificate of Doctor which shows that the concerned workman was being treated for his mental sickness from 25.5.1984, to 17.8.1988, and as such he could not have joined his duty. This finding has been arrived at by the Presiding Officer on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned Labour Court has further given finding on fact that materials on record and evidence adduced by the Management does not show that any notice was actually served on the concerned workman. The above findings on fact is based on appreciation of the evidence and as such cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction unless it is shown that the find-Ings are perverse and are not based on the materials on record or are based on error of record but in the present case there is no such case of the management. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in L,P.A. No. 324 of 2001, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 3274 of 199 (R) (Heavy Engineering Corporation v. Lidha Oraon), disposed of on 16.12.2002, in a similar circumstances has set aside the order of the learned Singh Judge in the said writ application whereby in terms of Clause 15 (X) of the Certified Standing Order the concerned workman was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence without any information to the management. From perusal of the Judgments in the said L.P.A. No. 324 of 2001, it appears that the facts of that case itself quite different from to that facts of the present case. 9. From the facts of the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Lidha Oran and Ors. (supra), it appears that in that case though the concerned workman had reason for his absence from 27.11.1988 to 17.2.1989, when he remained under treatment in Ranchi Man-sik Auroygsala, Kanke but he did not made any effort to resume his duty after 17.2.1989, after he was medically fit and then under Clause 15(X) of the Certified of Standing Order he was dismissed from service. But in the present case as it appears that the concerned workman became medically fit on 17.8.1988, and on that very date itself he went to join his duty which was not accepted and therefore, the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Lidha Oran and Ors. (supra), is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer. It is dismissed. No. costs.