Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the present writ application the prayer for the petitioner is for quashing the award dated 5.3.1997 as contained in Annexure-7, whereby the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad has set aside the order of dismissal and has ordered to reinstate the Respondent No. 2 in service with 50% of the back wages with all other benefits including continuity of service, seniority etc., in Ref. Case No. 88 of 1993 under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2. The respondent No. 2 Bishwanth Sarkar was working as a Drill man C with the petitioner. It is stated that there was 50 group known a Crew, consisting of one drill man and two helpers in each group and respondent No. 2 i.e. workman concerned was served with a charge-sheet on 30.4.1992 alleging that he had resorted to go slow tactics with effect from 18.4.1992 resulting in reduction in production. In-spite of the order/direction of the Management he did not give normal production and by deliberately slowing down the work and disobeyed the order of the Management and therefore it amounted to misconduct. 3. Thereafter domestic enquiry was constituted by appointing Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer found him guilty and on that basis, the order of dismissal from service dated 21.9.1992 was issued to him. 4 The Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) and Sub-section (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. "Whether the action of the management of Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. is dismissing Shri Biswanath Sarkar Drill man C Token No. 1830 vide their order dated 21.9.1992 justified? if not to what relief the workman is entitled?" 5. As it appears from the impugned award that the case of the concerned workman before the Tribunal was that the Manager (Personnel and Administration) was not the competent authority to issue charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer also suffers from lack of competence and jurisdiction. Domestic Enquiry was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and further that copy of the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the concerned workman prior to dismissal for making representation against the same. 6. The Management appeared and filed written statement before the Tribunal stating that the reference was not maintainable and was too stale. 6. The Management appeared and filed written statement before the Tribunal stating that the reference was not maintainable and was too stale. It was further said that the concerned workman was dismissed from service when misconduct was proved against him after a regular enquiry and it was held after giving reasonable opportunity and in compliance of natural justice and fair play. The holding of the departmental enquiry was heard as preliminary issues and by order dated 26.5.1995 the same was held to be fair and proper by the then Presiding Officer. On the basis of the materials and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties the learned Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration:-- (A) As to whether any disadvantage/prejudice was caused to the Workman by non-supply of copy of enquiry report prior to awarding the punishment of dismissal. (B) Whether the punishment awarded to him was too serve considering past service record of the workman and circumstances of the case. (C) Whether or not the workman is entitled for any relief? 7. The learned Tribunal held that since the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the concerned workman prior to passing of the order of dismissal and in absence of such copy of the enquiry report the workman could not make proper representation to the Management for sympathetic consideration and in this way he was put to disadvantage and was certainly prejudiced by this action of the Management. Had opportunity been given to him by serving copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the workman might have approached the management with suitable representation for considering his case sympathetically to give lighter punishment. 8. It was held that the dismissal order, Ext. M-20 was too severe in the facts and circumstances of the case and further that only 4/5 drill men including the workman were picked and chose by the management who were dealt with severely in the form of their dismissal, whereas the rest other drill man in similar circumstances were let off by the management. 9. The learned Tribunal thereby passed the impugned award holding that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman was not justified and he set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the workman in service with 50% back wages with all other benefits including continuity of service and seniority etc. 9. The learned Tribunal thereby passed the impugned award holding that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman was not justified and he set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the workman in service with 50% back wages with all other benefits including continuity of service and seniority etc. However, liberty was given to the management to proceed with the domestic enquiry if it so desires, from the stage of serving copy of enquiry report in accordance with law and the workman may put under suspension if so required. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the domestic enquiry had been held to be fair and proper and the concerned workman has not been able to show JCR-(1)-30(HC) as to how he was prejudiced by non-supply of the enquiry report, the award of the Tribunal is illegal and fit to be set aside. 11. On the other hand Mr. R.Krishna learned counsel for the respondents i.e. the concerned workman has submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has clearly held that denial of right to copy of the enquiry report amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Principle of natural justice. 12. Since in the present case there is no dispute that the enquiry report was not supplied to the concerned workman before the order of dismissal was passed and therefore, relying on the decision of supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (Supra), I hold that the award of the learned Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid and it does not require any inter ference by this Court. Accordingly this writ application is dismissed. No Costs.