Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2, In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribul1al-l, Dhanbad dated 18.9.2009 in Reference Case No. 99 of 2006 whereby, in answer to the following reference "Whether the action of the management of Sijua Colliery of M/s. TISCa in dismissing Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, Trammer from the services of the company w.e.f. 26.4.2000 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?" the learned Tribunal held that the action of the Management of M/s. TISCO in dismissing the workman Dilip Kumar Singh from the service of the Company w.e.f. 26.4.2000, was not justified and hence he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity in service with 25% backwages. 3. The charge against the workman was that he was absenting from the duty for 15.07.1999 to 26.09.1999 unauthorisedly without permission and without information to the employer-Company which amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Clause 19(16) of the Company's Certified Standing Orders. 4. From the impugned Award, it appears that the defence of the workman was that he was suffering from Jaundice and, therefore, he left for his native village on 14.07.1999 for his better treatment, where he underwent treatment and he duly informed about his illness to the authorities concerned of his employer. After he recovered from his illness after sixty (60) days, he approached the Management by filing application with Medical Certificate to allow him to resume his duties on 22.9.1999, but the Management in fact allowed him to join on 27.9.1999 only but subsequently, by an order, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 26.4.2000. 5. According to the petitioner-Como-pany, the workman was habitual absentee and on earlier occasions also, on similar misconduct, he was awarded certain punishment. 6. From the impugned Award, it appears that the learned Tribunal, on relying on documentary evidence-Ext. ME-4-i.e. the Doctor's Certificate, disclosing the fact that the workman was suffering from Hepatitis, held that though the workman came to join after recovering from his illness but the Management did not allow him to join. 6. From the impugned Award, it appears that the learned Tribunal, on relying on documentary evidence-Ext. ME-4-i.e. the Doctor's Certificate, disclosing the fact that the workman was suffering from Hepatitis, held that though the workman came to join after recovering from his illness but the Management did not allow him to join. It is further held by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence and materials on record that an application was filed by the workman to the Management requesting him to allow to resume his duties on 22.9.1999, but the Management did not allow him to join on that day but he was allowed to join only on 26.9.1999 i.e. after six days, treating him to be absent from duty up to 26.9.1999. This showed the adamant attitude of the Management. The Tribunal has further held on facts that disease from which the concerned workman was suffering showed that his absence was not intentional and, therefore, the dismissal of the concerned workman from service was too harsh. 7. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management, relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Usha Breeo Mazdoor Sangh vs. Management of Usha Breeo Limited and Another reported in (2008)5 SCC 554 and in the case of Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 491 , submitted that once the Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry held was legal and valid, then in that case, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal becomes very limited. In such a case, the Tribunal cannot upset the finding of facts arrived at in the domestic enquiry, where the charges against the concerned workman has been found to be proved. He further submitted that under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the labour Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence afresh, in order to find out as to whether the Management was justified in awarding punishment to the concerned workman or not lastly, he submitted that the labour Tribunal could not have awarded 25% of back wages to the concerned workman. 8. 8. The Supreme Court has already settled the law in this regard by holding that even where the dismissal of workman by an employer on the ground of misconduct is preceded by a proper• and valid domestic enquiry, Section 11A empowers the labour Court or the Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of findings tl1ereof. Section 11 A further empowers the labour Court or the Tribunal to interfere with ttle punishment or to alter the same. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. vs. The Management and others reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 , particularly, paragraphs-32, 33, 37 and 45. Recently also, the Supreme Court, in the case of Mavji C. Lakum VS. Central Bank of India reported in (2008) 12 SCC 726 , in paragraph-23, has held as follows:- "23..........Even if inquiry is found to be fair, that is only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities were given to delinquent and principles of natural justice and fair play were observed. That does not mean that findings arrived at were essentially correct findings, if the industrial Tribunal comes to a conclusion that findings could not be supported on the basis of evidence given, or further comes to a conclusion that punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal would still be justified in reappreciating evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There can be no dispute that power under Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and interference is possible only when the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and further concudes that punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Besides, the Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or with the quantum of punishment and that such reason should not be fanciful or whimsical but there should be good reasons." 9. Besides, the Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or with the quantum of punishment and that such reason should not be fanciful or whimsical but there should be good reasons." 9. From the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in tile case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh (supra), I find nowhere in the said decision it has been held therein that in no case, the Labour Court or the Tribunal can disturb the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry once it is held to be valid and proper. Rather on the other hand it has been held therein that in an appropriate case the labour court on reappreciation of evidence can upset the findings of the domestic enquiry. 10. In the present case also, though the domestic enquiry was found to be proper and valid, but I find that in the impugned Award of the Tribunal wherein, on consideration of evidence and materials on records has held that the findings of the Tribunal that dismissal of the workman by the Company was not justified, does not suffer from any infirmity. The impugned award cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Even the 25% back wages awarded to the concerned workman, is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.