Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.--Heard Mr. Sen for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State 2. The Writ Petitioner i.e. Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. has prayed for quashing of the Award dated 22.11.2000 (Annexure-8) pronounced on 28.1.2000, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro whereby, the Labour Court has held that the termination of service of the Respondent No.2 i.e. the concerned workman is unjustified and improper and consequentially directed the Management to reinstate the concerned workman in service with 50% back wages with continuity in service and other consequential benefits. 3. The terms of reference before the Labour Court was as follows:- "Whether the termination from services of Shri Ram Pratap workman, Staff No. 039512, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, by the management is justified? If not, what relief workman is entitled to?" 4. The concerned workman was charge-sheeted for the charge that he deliberately concealed the facts of his involvement in criminal case and thereby remaining in jail custody. This sort of concealing fact and furnishing false information amount to gross misconduct and act subversive of good behaviour and discipline. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid charge, the management dismissed the workman by order dated 8.7.1985. The workman, thereafter, raised Industrial Dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court, after adjudication, answered the Reference in favour of the workman holding that his dismissal was unjustified and improper. 6. From the impugned award, it appears that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, after considering the evidence and materials on record, has come to the findings on fact that the Enquiry Committee was not only biased against the workman but the Committee also wrongly came to the conclusion that the workman had deliberately avoided to pass on such information to his employer in order to conceal guilt without giving any cogent and convincing reason for arriving at such conclusion. The Labour Court held that as a matter of fact, there was nothing on record to discredit the version of the workman that he had not given any information to the informant during the period he was in judicial custody. The Labour Court refused to accept the report of the enquiry committee which held the workman guilty. 7. The Labour Court held that as a matter of fact, there was nothing on record to discredit the version of the workman that he had not given any information to the informant during the period he was in judicial custody. The Labour Court refused to accept the report of the enquiry committee which held the workman guilty. 7. The Labour Court also held on the facts and materials on record that the concerned workman became victim of circumstances as his co-workers did not give correct information regarding his arrest and detention in judicial custody and as such, his dismissal from service was unjust and improper. 8. It is a settled law that this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate court and findings on facts cannot be reversed on reappraisal of evidence, unless a glaring illegality and perversity in the award is found. 9. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner so as to come to the conclusion that the impugned award or any finding of the Labour Court is perverse in any manner. Therefore, in my view, no case at all is made out for any interference. Acc0rdingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.