ORDER : Questioning the legality of order dated 31.07.2008 in W.P.(L) No. 1916 of 2006, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the workmen represented through Janta Mazdoor Sangh. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the appellant referring to decision in “Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and another.” (2014) 6 SCC 434 , submits that interference with the findings of the Tribunal is permissible only in cases where the Tribunal has committed error of jurisdiction or serious error in law or where the judgment is found not based on evidence led before the Tribunal. It is contended that the learned Single Judge reappreciated the evidence and posed a wrong question that, “the main question to be examined was whether the names of the workmen were in the lists sent from Bhowra area to Bhalgora area or not”, and thus erroneously interfered with the award dated 28.09.2005 in Reference Case No. 98 of 1994. 4. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited supporting the interference with the award dated 28.09.2005 contends that mere reiteration of the facts brought on record would not amount to reappreciation of evidence. The fact that the workmen concerned are not included in Ext. M3 series and Ext. M4 series is a matter of record, still the Tribunal held that they were validly appointed. It is thus contended that the award is based on the facts not established by the concerned workmen before the Tribunal. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions we propose to examine the issue of jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In “Nagendra Nath Bora and Another Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others” AIR 1958 SC 398 , it has been held that every error either of law or fact cannot be corrected by a superior Court in exercise of its power as a Court of appeal. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the inference to be drawn from the facts pleaded is not a point which can be agitated before a Writ Court. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the inference to be drawn from the facts pleaded is not a point which can be agitated before a Writ Court. Discussing the jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Syed Yaqoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others” AIR 1964 SC 477 observed thus ; “7. ........... 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 where in 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. 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. …........” 6. Briefly stated, the concerned workmen namely, Ram Pravesh Paswan and 37 others were appointed as Miner/Loader by the management of Bhalgora colliery for work at Burrgarh, Hurrilladih and Simlabahal collieries. A chargememo for committing misconduct under Clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company was issued vide letter dated 02/07.04.92 and they were put under suspension. One of the charges framed against the workmen was that they connived with the Clerk and Personnel Manager of the General Manager and got themselves fraudulently appointed. The specific case pleaded by the management was that in the list containing name of 319 persons which is the panel for appointment prepared by Bhowra area, names of the concerned workmen do not find place. The specific case pleaded by the management was that in the list containing name of 319 persons which is the panel for appointment prepared by Bhowra area, names of the concerned workmen do not find place. In the domestic enquiry the charges framed against the workmen were found proved and accordingly, they were discharged from service. The dispute raised on behalf of the concerned workmen culminated in award dated 13.06.2000 which was challenged in C.W.J.C No. 4349 of 2000 by the management of M/s B.C.C.L and, vide order dated 31.07.2001 the reference was revived with a direction to permit the management to adduce evidence. The Tribunal noticed that the concerned workmen were appointed through the appointment letter issued by the management itself under the signature of the General Manager of Bhalgora area. It was not denied by the management that the General Manager is the competent authority for appointment of Miners/Loaders. 7. The management examined one Ram Janam Singh (M.W. 1) who was posted in Bhowra area as Deputy Personnel Manager and one B.D. Singh (M.W. 2) who was posted as Deputy Chief Personnel Manager in the year, 1992 at Bhalgora area. The witness M.W. 1 tendered Exts. M-3 series and Exts. M-4 series. None of the witnesses claimed that the list for appointment was transmitted through Peon book and M.W. 1 has admitted that the Peon book was not produced by the management to establish that appointments only from the list were made. The management also failed to disclose the name of the Miners/Loaders and their appointment letters who were allegedly appointed from the list of 319 employees prepared for appointment. The General Manager who issued appointment letters to the concerned workmen was not examined by the management to establish that the Dealing clerk or Personnel Manager of the General Manager misled him in getting the appointment letters issued. Any other person connected with the appointment procedure was also not examined by the management. 8. On the question of submitting forged and fabricated documents the Tribunal recorded a finding that the management has not led any evidence on this point and the said finding has not been challenged by the management by disclosing evidence led by it on the said issue. The only plea taken by the management is that Ext. M-3 series and Ext. On the question of submitting forged and fabricated documents the Tribunal recorded a finding that the management has not led any evidence on this point and the said finding has not been challenged by the management by disclosing evidence led by it on the said issue. The only plea taken by the management is that Ext. M-3 series and Ext. M-4 series documents do not contain the name of the concerned workmen and thus, a presumption has to be raised that they secured appointment by fraudulent means. In our considered view this question has been rightly answered by the Tribunal. Once a charge of submitting forged and fabricated documents is framed, the onus was on the management to lead adequate evidence to prove the said charge. As noticed above, except, Ext. M-3 series and Ext. M-4 series no evidence was led by the management. The management did not file panel list of 319 candidates who were allegedly selected for appointment in different collieries. The management has also failed to produce the proceeding before the Appointing Committee. The Tribunal has noticed that Exts. M-3 series were not sent to Bhalgora area rather, the lists were forwarded to Bhowra area and the forwarding letter did not bear any endorsement. The Tribunal has discussed in detail the documents under Ext. M-3 series and Ext. M-4 series and the facts noticed by the Tribunal have not been challenged by the management as incorrect or contrary to the record. Considering the materials brought on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the management failed to prove the charges levelled against the concerned workmen. Consequently, the action of the management terminating the service of Ram Pravesh Paswan and 37 other workmen were held not justified. However, the learned Single Judge on reappreciation of the documents produced by the management vide Exts. M-3 series and M-4 series came to a conclusion that the concerned workmen were fraudulently appointed. 9. It is well settled that the High Court while examining the legality and propriety of a decision rendered by the Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal. A perusal of impugned order dated 31.07.2008 discloses that the learned Single Judge after noticing that, “the management witnessM.W1 Ram Janam Singh categorically said in his evidence that he was posted as Deputy Personnel Manager in Bhowra area at the relevant time. A perusal of impugned order dated 31.07.2008 discloses that the learned Single Judge after noticing that, “the management witnessM.W1 Ram Janam Singh categorically said in his evidence that he was posted as Deputy Personnel Manager in Bhowra area at the relevant time. While proving the said Exts. M-3 series and M-4 series, he categorically said that Ext. M-3 series were the lists received from the employment exchange; the candidates were absorbed in Bhowra area as per the said lists and names of those who were left, were forwarded to Bhalgora area; and that from Ext. M-4 series only, the appointments were to be made in Bhalgora area but the names of concerned workmen were not there in the said lists forwarded to Bhalgora area.” , recorded a finding that the management proved that the workmen concerned were appointed fraudulently. The evidence of the management witnesses and Ext. M-3 series and Ext. M-4 series were considered by the Tribunal and on an appreciation of evidence led before it, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the charge of fraudulently seeking appointment framed against the concerned workmen was not proved. Now, merely referring to the aforesaid evidence the learned Single Judge could not have arrived at a contrary finding holding that the management proved that the concerned workmen were appointed fraudulently. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has reappreciated the evidence though, not even an error of fact committed by the Tribunal has been established by the management. In “Swarn Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others” (1976) 2 SCC 868 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 10. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 10. We further find that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that onus was on the Union of the concerned workmen to prove that the concerned workmen were appointed following the due process of selection, is patently erroneous. In so far as, adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal is concerned, it is to be noticed in the context of the failure of the management to produce any document to substantiate the charge of producing forged and fabricated documents. The specific charge framed against the workmen reads as under: “Although your name does not exist in the SC/ST list forwarded by Bhowra Area to Bhalgora Area as referred to above, you in connivance with Shri Jitendra Kumar Adeshra, Dealing Assistant and with assistance of Shri P.M. Prasad, Personnel Manager got offer of appointment of provisional Temporary Miner/Loader fraudulently by submitting xeroxed/forged/fabricated documents and concealing your antecedents etc. and thus you indulged in fraud and dishonesty in connection with Company's business and property”. 11. Copies of the chargememo dated 06.04.1992 issued to one of the concerned workmen namely, Jagannath Das and his reply dated 09.04.1992 have been brought on record. The concerned workman denying the charges stated that he appeared in the interview and he was declared successful. It is not a case in which the award has been rendered only by drawing adverse inference against the management. Infact, no adverse inference has been drawn against the management for not producing document. The facts in “M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram” (2004) 8 SCC 246 , the judgment considered by the learned Single Judge in favour of respondent while allowing the Writ Petition, were entirely different. It was a case under Section 25F and 25N r/w 25B(2)(a)(ii) of the industrial Dispute Acts, 1947 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts erred in basing an order of reinstatement “solely” on an adverse inference drawn. We further find that the learned Single Judge looked into the departmental proceeding initiated against J.K. Adesra and P. M. Prasad. It was a case under Section 25F and 25N r/w 25B(2)(a)(ii) of the industrial Dispute Acts, 1947 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts erred in basing an order of reinstatement “solely” on an adverse inference drawn. We further find that the learned Single Judge looked into the departmental proceeding initiated against J.K. Adesra and P. M. Prasad. Admittedly, the proceeding against those persons were not brought on record in Reference Case No. 98 of 1994. It is not known whether the management examined same set of witnesses and produced the same documentary evidence in support of charges against the said J.K. Adesra and P.M. Prasad. In our considered opinion it was not open to the learned Shingle Judge to place reliance on the orders passed against those two officers. 12. We have carefully perused the record of the Writ Court and we find that the management reiterated the same plea which was raised before the Tribunal. There is no challenge to the award of back wages to the concerned workmen upon their reinstatement in service nor at the time of hearing of the writ petition any challenge was thrown to grant of 50% backwages to the concerned workmen. Considering the aforesaid facts what follows is that the learned Single Judge seriously erred in law in interfering with award dated 28.09.2005. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed, and consequently, award dated 28.09.2005 is restored.