JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard 2. In this writ petition, petitioner who is the employer in relation to the management of Bhowra Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has challenged the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad whereby the Tribunal has answered the reference against the management holding that the concerned workman Smt. Panchami Mahatine is entitled to her reinstatement with full back wages and consequential relief. 3. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. "Whether the action of the management in dismissing Smt. Panchami Mahtain from the service of the company is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? 4. The concerned workman is a lady, against whom the charge of theft, fraud or dishonestly in stealing away coal was levelled and also assaulting of the female Security Guards. Charge-sheet was served upon her and the departmental inquiry was initiated by the petitioner-management and on the basis of Inquiry Report she was dismissed from service. Thereafter, a dispute was raised with regard to validity of the dismissal order and the same was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication being Reference Case No. 19/96. Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances in detail and taking a notice of the fact that the concerned workman and others were acquitted in the criminal charges and held that misconduct has not been proved. Accordingly, dismissal order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service. 5. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the Award mainly on the ground that relevant and material evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal while holding that charges were not proved. 6. From perusal of the Award, it appears that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant and material evidences and recorded a finding against the management. 7. It is well-settled that finding of Labour Court or Tribunal cannot be subject to judicial review on the ground that relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court or Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate and the High Court normally should not interfere with the Award based on finding of fact. 7. It is well-settled that finding of Labour Court or Tribunal cannot be subject to judicial review on the ground that relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court or Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate and the High Court normally should not interfere with the Award based on finding of fact. In this connection, reference may be made to the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Sayed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 477, and in the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54 . 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the Award. 9. There writ petition is dismissed.