Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry conducted was not fair and the learned lower court, by the impugned order dated 4th April, 2008, in Reference Case No. 30/97, has come to a finding that the enquiry report was fair and proper without considering the evidences available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case in the enquiry and the impugned award is bad and perverse. He has relied upon a judgment in the case of Scooter India Ltd., Luck now vs. Labour Court, Lucknow, reported in AIR 1989 SC 149 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Management has submitted that in spite of finding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has looked into the entire evidences available on record and dealt with the case of both the parties at length before coming to a finding that the termination of the petitioner was in accordance with law and he is not entitled to get any relief. He has also relied upon a judgment in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. VS. Khem Chand, reported in (2006)6 SCC 325 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a finding that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, after giving a finding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the workman having full knowledge of the same, did not participate in the domestic enquiry, has come to a finding that though the workman was present only one day and on that day also he has refused to sign or participate in the proceeding. He has discussed the entire case of the workman where he claimed that any victimization was done against him. He has discussed the entire case of the workman where he claimed that any victimization was done against him. In para 15, the Labour Court stated that the petitioner, vide Ext.-M-5/16, was transferred to Digwadih Colliery from 6/7 Pits Colliery and he was directed to join on 1.6.1992, however, the workman did not join his lew assignment without giving any information and without taking any permission and then an explanation was called for from him and by Ext.-M-2 the workman stated that his transfer order was illegal and without jurisdiction and filed petitions on 5.5.1992 and 31.1.93. The Labour Court has also found that by another representation filed on 8.6.1992 he stated that the matter is pending regarding illegal transfer and as such he refused to join his new place for complete two years and then the Management started domestic enquiry against the workman. In the domestic enquiry also the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence and document, found that the workman refused to participate in the same. The Tribunal has also considered Ext.-M-5/17, which shows that the petitioner was not the only person, who was transferred from 6/7 Pits Colliery to Digwadih Colliery but six other employees were also transferred alongwith him. The workman's case is that he was transferred only because earlier he has obtained an award against the Management, which was also found to be not correct, since the said award was passed 5 years back and the same was implemented, and after six years, only because there was requirement of the workmen at Digwadih Colliery, these workmen were transferred. 5. Thus, I find that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, after considering all aspects of the matter, has passed the impugned award, which does not suffer from any illegality. 6. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. .