ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 21.1.2015 rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.G.I.T.'), Dhanbad in Reference No. 216/2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby, the learned C.G.I.T. has answered the said reference in favour of the respondent-Union directing the petitioner-Management to provide employment to the dependant son of late Shanti Nonia. The brief background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that late Shanti Nonia was working as Wagon Loader at Katras-Chaitudih Colliery under Katras Area of M/s. BCCL. While in the service of M/s. BCCL, she died in course of treatment at Central Hospital, Dhanbad on 27.12.1989. After the death of the deceased workman, her dependant son, namely, Binod Kumar Nonia applied for his compassionate appointment in the year 1992. In the application, the date of birth of the dependant son was shown as 15.6.1977 and, therefore, he was merely 12 years' old at the time of the death of his mother and 15 years' old on the date of submitting the application. The dependant son attained his majority in 1995, he thereafter submitted an application dated 24.8.1996 for being appointed on compassionate ground. The application submitted by the dependant son was, however, rejected on 8.12.1998 on the ground of delay in making application for compassionate appointment and the aforesaid decision was communicated to the dependant son vide letter dated 12.1.1999 of the Project Officer, Katras-Chaitudih Colliery. Thereafter, the Secretary, Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, who soon thereafter took up the matter for conciliation. However, the conciliation failed and the failure report was submitted before the appropriate Government. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide its Order No. L20012/32/2000-(C-I) dated 24.7.2000, referred the following dispute for adjudication: "Whether the action of the Management of Katras-Chaitudih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in rejecting the claim of Sri Binod Kumar Nonia, dependant son of late Shanti Nonia, for employment is justified? If not, to what relief the said dependent is entitled?" 2. On receipt of the said reference, the learned C.G.I.T. registered the same as Ref. No. 216/2000 and issued notices to the respective parties to submit their written statements/rejoinders. Both the parties filed their respective written statements/rejoinders. 3. If not, to what relief the said dependent is entitled?" 2. On receipt of the said reference, the learned C.G.I.T. registered the same as Ref. No. 216/2000 and issued notices to the respective parties to submit their written statements/rejoinders. Both the parties filed their respective written statements/rejoinders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award dated 21.1.2015 primarily on the ground that the same is cryptic in nature, as the learned C.G.I.T. has not at all discussed the evidences adduced by the parties during the industrial adjudication and without appreciating any evidence, has held that there is no reason to regret the claim of the workman and, accordingly, the workman was directed to be engaged in the job soon after the publication of the award in the Gazette. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned award dated 21.1.2015, it appears that in paragraph-1 of the impugned award, the learned C.G.I.T. has quoted the terms of the reference and in paragraph-2, the numbers of witnesses and exhibit's have been mentioned. Thereafter, on narrating the facts in five lines, without appreciating any evidence adduced by the parties, the learned C.G.I.T. has directly come to the finding that there is no reason to regret the claim of the workman and held that the concerned workman is required to be engaged in job soon after publication of the award in Gazette. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait vs. CIT reported in AIR 1959 SC 1238 , has held as under: "33. We are aware that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it this Court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings even though on questions of fact will be liable to be set aside by this Court." 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atlas Cycle vs. Kitab Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 573 , has held as under: "15. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge thoroughly analysed all the aspects and arrived at a correct conclusion. It is settled law that when the Labour Court arrived at a finding overlooking the materials on record, it would amount to perversity and the writ court would be fully justified in interfering with the said conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court exercising writ of certiorari jurisdiction would not permit to assume the role of the appellate court, however, the Court is well within its power to interfere if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal/Labour Court had erroneously refused to admit the admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted any inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding, the writ court would be justified in exercising its remedy. In other words, 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." 7. In my opinion, the impugned award dated 21.1.2015 contains no feature of an award at all. Neither the deposition of the witnesses nor the documents exhibited by the parties have been discussed in the impugned award. It is not expected of the learned C.G.I.T. to pass such award which is totally devoid of any factual assessment. In my opinion, the impugned award dated 21.1.2015 contains no feature of an award at all. Neither the deposition of the witnesses nor the documents exhibited by the parties have been discussed in the impugned award. It is not expected of the learned C.G.I.T. to pass such award which is totally devoid of any factual assessment. On this score alone, the impugned award dated 21.1.2015 passed by the learned C.G.I.T., Dhanbad in Reference No. 216/2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained in law and the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 8. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to pass a fresh award on due appreciation/consideration of the evidences already brought on record by the parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The present writ petition is disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observation and direction.