JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. This application is directed against the award dated 16.1.1987 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 43 of 1986 by which, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited was justified in dismissing, the concerned workmen namely, Raja Ram Kahar, Timber Mistiri from service. 2. The Government of India referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication :-- "Whether the management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited were Justified in dismissing from service from 1.7.1983 Shri Rajaram Kahar, Timber Mistry? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" 3. The petitioner Raja Ram Kahar was working as Timber Mistry in Bhalgora Section of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. BCCL. In the night between 12.12.1982 and 13.12.1982 a theft was committed from the safe of cash room of Simlabahal Colliery and cash amounting to Rs. 2,03,537/- was stolen away. The first information report was lodged by the Management regarding the commission of the said theft at Jharia Police Station on 13.12.1982. The petitioner was one of the suspects and in course of investigation, on 19.12.1982, the Police recovered Rs. 27,184/- from the house of Bharat Dusadh, Rs. 80,658/- from the house of Kedar Nath Kahar and Rs. 15,921/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner i.e., the concerned workman. The Police thus recovered Rs. 1,23,763/-from the house of the accused persons including that of the petitioner. The Management issued charge-sheet to all the three workman including the petitioner and he was suspended pending enquiry. 4. The main contention of the concerned workman was that the place from which money was recovered, did not exclusively belonged to him. 5. One Deputy Personnel Manager of Kustore area was appointed to conduct enquiry into the charges against the petitioner and he fixed 10.1.1983 in the said enquiry. The letter regarding enquiry was sent to the concerned workman on 5.1.1983 at his local residential address but the same could not be served as the petitioner had left his local residence of the Colliery. Thereafter a letter was sent by Registered post in the permanent address of the petitioner but the same was also returned undelivered as the petitioner was not found there. Thereafter a letter was sent by Registered post in the permanent address of the petitioner but the same was also returned undelivered as the petitioner was not found there. In similar way four letters were sent to the petitioner at his local as well as to his permanent address regarding the enquiry but none of those letters were served due to non-availability of the petitioner and then the Notice was published in the local daily newspaper "Awaz" but the petitioner did not appear, as such the departmental enquiry was decided ex parte against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from the service. This was also published in the local daily newspaper. 6. The case of the petitioner is that since he was falsely implicated in the criminal case and, therefore, he became frustrated and depressed and, as such, in spite of several notices, he did not appear in the departmental enquiry, as by that time he had denounced the earthly life. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal completely failed to consider that the quarter from which a part of the stolen money was recovered, did not belong to the petitioner and, therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from service was absolutely wrong. It is further submitted that the Management failed to prove the case against the petitioner and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon him was absolutely wrong. 8. On the other hand Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal should not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review, in view of the decision in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and Anr., reported in 2000 (4) SCC 245 . 9. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears on appreciation of evidence on record, it has been held by the Tribunal that the concerned workman did not raise any dispute by challenging, the order of his dismissal from service for a long period and also the fact of recovery of Rs. 15,921/- within a few days from the date of theft was not explained by him and. therefore, it established that he was a party to the said theft. 15,921/- within a few days from the date of theft was not explained by him and. therefore, it established that he was a party to the said theft. His subsequent conduct of absconding for a long period and avoiding to attend the enquiry also showed his misconduct of theft against him. 10. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner so as to arrive at a different conclusion than that the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, therefore, I hold that the impugned award cannot be said to be wrong, illegal and perverse in any manner. No case at all is made out so as to call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no merit, this application is dismissed. No costs.