ORDER By Court:-Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd August, 2002, in CWJC No.3286/1994R, whereby the writ petition of the management had been dismissed upholding the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, dated 13th May, 1994. 3. A dispute arose because of the reason that in the erstwhile East India Coal Company, when 500 workmen working in Jealgora Colliery were stopped from working, CWJC No. 995/1976 was preferred in the Patna High Court and during the pendency of that writ petition, settlement was arrived at between the employees and the employer, where under after identification of the employees, employment was to be given. In view of the settlement, the respondent, who claimed himself to be Sheo Chand @ Sudarshan, got the appointment on 17.10.1981 and continued to work upto to the year 1987 as he was removed from service on a complaint alleged to have been submitted by one lady, who claimed herself to be the wife of Sheo Chand and stated therein that her husband died about four years ago and the respondent got the appointment in the name of Sheo Chand. The respondent admittedly submitted an application for change of his name as well as address. According to the respondent-workman, when he submitted the application for change of his name and address, then only the dispute cropped up. The respondent-workman also questioned the identity of the complainant, the alleged wife of Sheo Chand. However, after holding enquiry, the charge against workman was found proved and his service was terminated and the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal, vide order dated 11th December, 1990, for adjudication:- “Whether the action of the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Jealgora, Dist. Dhanabd, in dismissing Shri Sheo Chand @ Sudarshan from service is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? 4. Learned Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, found substance in the plea of the workman that the complainant, alleged wife of Sheo Chand, Bhamia Devi's identity was not established. Dhanabd, in dismissing Shri Sheo Chand @ Sudarshan from service is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? 4. Learned Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, found substance in the plea of the workman that the complainant, alleged wife of Sheo Chand, Bhamia Devi's identity was not established. The Tribunal also held that the conduct of the witnesses, MW-4 Shri Jodhai Jaiswara and MW-5 Ganori Paswan created doubt about the credence of the statement of the witnesses who alleged that they were knowing the real employee but did not inform the management for a long period, if the respondent-workman was not the real employee in their knowledge, nor they did inform this fact to any member of the family of the real workman. Therefore, after rejecting the evidence against the workman and accepting the plea of the workmen, the Tribunal held that the decision holding the workmen guilty is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal awarded 50% back wages also. 5. The award was challenged before this Court as stated above and the writ petition had been dismissed holding that in the writ jurisdiction, the Court is not going to reassess and re-appreciate the evidence which had already been considered by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Management vehemently submitted that the Tribunal specifically recorded that the domestic enquiry was fair and its propriety was not under challenge and in that situation, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to upset the findings recorded, treating the reference to be an appeal against the order passed by the Management. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman reiterated the submissions which were made before the Tribunal and stated that once the Tribunal had reached to the conclusion that the order was based on absolutely irrelevant evidence, drawing inference from the evidence cannot be said to be question of fact and the Tribunal could certainly correct the wrong drawing of the inference in enquiry by exercising jurisdiction in reference case. 8. 8. It is not in dispute that the workman was in employment since before 1965; he was stopped from working; in the year 1976, writ petition was pending before this Court preferred by the workman through Union; during that period, settlement was arrived at between the parties and appointment was given by the Management obviously after verifying the fact and undisputedly the employee submitted an application for correction of his name, but before that, appointment was given by the Management certainly by verifying the identity of the person as it was one of the conditions for giving employment to the workmen and this fact is admitted by the Management that it was a condition precedent for giving appointment. 9. Since the employee was of the year prior to 1965 and could get appointment in the year 1981 and served upto the year 1987, he is not in service today, as he attained the age of superannuation certainly several years ago. So far as his salary and other wages are concerned, he received those when he was in service from 1981 to 1987. Therefore, in these peculiar facts and circumstances and taking into account the fact that even the Tribunal awarded 50% back wages as back as in the year 1994, we are of the considered opinion that in stead of passing the order of reinstatement, it will be appropriate to give a lump sum amount to the workman in satisfaction of all his benefits of the service of a period indicated above only and we quantify the same to be Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs. one lac and fifty thousand only). Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and award are modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement and any back wages, in full and final the workman shall be entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs. one lac and fifty thousand only) from the Management, which shall be paid by the Management to the respondent-workman within a period of eight weeks from today. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.