ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned Award dated 09.05.2011 [Annexure-5] passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 51 of 2000, the following reference “Whether the action of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda Area management in not absorbing the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males is in violation of the bi-partite agreement arrived at between the management and the Union? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?” has been answered in the following terms: “9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the management is not justified in not implementing the agreement with the union regarding giving employment to the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males, such as, their husband/son/son-in-law. The management of M/s. BCCL is directed to implement the agreement dated 09.12.80 and give employment to the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males, husband/son/son-in-law within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. This is my Award.” 3. The substratum of the case is that workmen herein raised their grievance under an Agreement dated 09.12.1980 between Management and Union, para-2 whereof is also quoted in the impugned Award and is extracted as under:- “2. Those female workers who have got 75 days or more attendances during the year 1973 to 1976, their husband/son/son-in-law shall be taken into employment as Badli Miner/Loader, as per Company's policy and subject to their physical fitness. The names of such female workers who have 75 or more days attendance during the period 1973 – 76, is attached as “B”. The workmen set up a case before the Management leading to reference of industrial dispute that these 35 female workers or their nominated alternate males have not been absorbed by M/s. BCCL in terms of the bipartite agreement. 4. It is not in dispute that the settlement was not adduced as an exhibit by either of the parties before learned Tribunal though contents thereof has been discussed at para-6 of the impugned Award referring to discussions made between the Union and the Management on different dates i.e. 31.11.1989, 24.05.1990, 24.09.1990, 16.10.1990, 25.10.1990, 26.03.1991 and 29.06.1991. 5. 4. It is not in dispute that the settlement was not adduced as an exhibit by either of the parties before learned Tribunal though contents thereof has been discussed at para-6 of the impugned Award referring to discussions made between the Union and the Management on different dates i.e. 31.11.1989, 24.05.1990, 24.09.1990, 16.10.1990, 25.10.1990, 26.03.1991 and 29.06.1991. 5. The Management produced one witness who supported their case that the present Reference is nothing but a concoction for incorporating false and fabricated names just to induct relatives of some or the other in one form or the other. The settlement was of 09.12.1980 and the present demand has been made in the year 1999 alleging that 35 ladies covered thereunder are not being absorbed in employment. This management witness also deposed that Circulars prior to 1992 have been canceled or revoked but the learned Tribunal also took note that any such Circular was not adduced on their behalf. This witness also stated that any Badli Worker is not issued any Identity Card but like others their particulars are also mentioned in Form-B Register. After nationalisation these Badli Workers who were working under erstwhile Management were also taken in the rolls of M/s. BCCL. Learned Tribunal took note of the fact that this witness came in service in the year 1977 and the matter related to the year 1973 to 1976 when he was not in service. He also took note of the fact that there were names of 113 workers in the short recital of the settlement contrary to the statements made by the witnesses that name of any of the concerned workmen did not figure in the bipartite settlement dated 09.12.1980. 6. On part of Union, two workmen witnesses were adduced – one being Smt. Piyare Devi whose name finds place in the list of the workmen in the list of delisted casual female wagon loader enclosed as Annexure-A Series of Counter Affidavit dated 25.12.1986 and a communication to the Superintendent of Mines, Godhur Colliery from Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area. However, this document was not exhibited. The workmen witness no. 1 – Piyare Devi in her deposition as Annexure-3 has stated in chief that she was working as a casual wagon loader at BCCL, Godhur Colliery prior to nationalisation on 1st May, 1972 and continued till 1976/77 when arbitrarily she was removed without notice. However, this document was not exhibited. The workmen witness no. 1 – Piyare Devi in her deposition as Annexure-3 has stated in chief that she was working as a casual wagon loader at BCCL, Godhur Colliery prior to nationalisation on 1st May, 1972 and continued till 1976/77 when arbitrarily she was removed without notice. In her cross examination, however, she has stated that she has got no appointment letter and has not filed any such appointment letter. She also does not know the name of Manager. She says that some of the women workmen in the list of 35 are still alive and names of three such persons who were husband of such workmen, has been stated; rest names of husband of the women, she does not know. She has stated that she does not know name of Union who has raised the dispute; she has not filed any receipt showing that she was Member of the Union and she also stated that other witnesses will adduce evidence. She further stated that a list of Kamins was submitted which contained parentage and addresses. Workmen witness no. 2-Lallan Nonia in his Chief has also stated that he was a de-listed workman prior to nationalisation on 1st May, 1972 and worked till 1976 together with 35 females of Reference No. 51 of 2000. His services were regularised as Badli Minor Loader as per BCCL's policy decision. He is aware of the bipartite settlement dated 09.12.1980. In his cross examination he has stated that presently he is about 60 years of age; he has not filed any document to that effect; he has not filed any document to show that he has been working since 24.01.1980; he claims to be one of the parties in the case but his name does not find in the case; he does not know the name of all 35 Kamina/persons. He further states that certain persons have got employment but others have got no employment who have filed their case. Though he claims that he has seen document filled by concerned person. He further admits that the case was filed 20 years before. He is also unaware of the name of the Union. He has stated that he cannot give details of the concerned persons or the workmen and submits that concerned workmen's CMPF were never deducted. He has further refuted that concerned workmen were fake persons. He further admits that the case was filed 20 years before. He is also unaware of the name of the Union. He has stated that he cannot give details of the concerned persons or the workmen and submits that concerned workmen's CMPF were never deducted. He has further refuted that concerned workmen were fake persons. These were the materials on record before the learned Tribunal to come to the finding that Management was not justified in implementing the Agreement dated 09.12.1980 for absorption of 35 female workers or their nominated male. 7. The document at Annexure-A series relied upon by the respondents in their counter affidavit, though were not adduced during course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, also categorically refer to the fact that the Director has approved for enlistment of dependent son/husband of the female casual workmen named therein but it would be subject to verification of their genuineness. The Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area has further advised the Superintendent of Mines, Godhur Colliery to ask Union representative to advise the claimants to submit the documents being the photographs, relationship certificate attested by B.D.O./Mukhiya etc. within a specified time to verify their genuineness. 8. It is, therefore, evident that Question of fact relating to genuineness of relationship of each such persons named in the list of de-listed casual workers were subject to verification and confirmation in adjudicatory proceeding i.e. Reference Case before the Learned Tribunal to come to a finding whether persons named in the list enclosed to the reference were entitled to seek absorption as per the terms of the by-partite agreement dated 09.12.1980. The process of adjudication involves ascertainment of findings of fact relating to each individual claim based on the provisions of law applicable to the facts in question which, in the present case being the Industrial Dispute Act. The learned Tribunal has miserably failed to take into account that the evidence before it was wholly insufficient to come to a finding that the Management was unjustified in implementing the Agreement for absorption of the female 35 workmen or their nominated alternate male in service. The impugned Award, therefore, suffers from serious errors on findings of fact which vitiate the final conclusion drawn by it. The inference drawn by the learned Tribunal is not supported by any cogent evidence which was required to be adduced by the workmen who set up their case for absorption. The impugned Award, therefore, suffers from serious errors on findings of fact which vitiate the final conclusion drawn by it. The inference drawn by the learned Tribunal is not supported by any cogent evidence which was required to be adduced by the workmen who set up their case for absorption. In absence thereof, the Award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it suffers from perversity. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, carefully gone through the record including the impugned award. It is appropriate to first quote the relevant paragraphs of the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radhakrishan & others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 in which the scope and width of a court of record exercising the writ of certiorari has been discussed. The aforesaid proposition laid down in respect of exercise of power of certiorari has held the field till date and has been followed in subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts ( para 7 and 8 are relevant):- “Para 7:-The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued wherein exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. Para No. 8:-It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened”. The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down that the scope of the power of High Court under Certiorari Jurisdiction to interfere in the Judgment of the inferior Tribunal – authorities so as to keep them within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In cases of illegality and perversity the order of the inferior Tribunal can be interfered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned Award dated 09.05.2011 [Annexure-5] passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 51 of 2000, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed. Let lower court record be sent back to the learned Tribunal.