ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Ref. No.60 of 1997, whereby the learned Tribunal, while answering the reference in negative, has held that the claim of the union for regularization of Mangu Kumhar and thirty others is not correct. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner as well as the respondent-Management adduced their respective evidences before the learned Tribunal in support of their cases, yet the learned Tribunal without appreciating any evidence vide impugned award dated 27th July, 2015 answered the reference in native, holding, inter alia, that the claim of regularization of the concerned workmen is not proper. It is further submitted that the claim of the concerned workmen before the learned Tribunal was that they continuously worked under the supervision of the respondent-Management in Bhurungia Project from 3rd February, 1985 to 31st December, 1991. The said workmen used to do the job of stone cutting, however, the said work was being done by regular workmen of the Management of BCCL in other collieries, who used to be paid the wages and allowance for Category-V. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument further submits that the evidences were adduced on behalf of the petitioner-Union in support of their claim before the learned Tribunal, however, without discussing any evidence, the reference has been answered in negative and, thus, the impugned award being cryptic in nature may be quashed and set aside. 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent-Management has been filed. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that statements have been made with regard to the documents exhibited in Reference No.60 of 1997 on behalf of the workmen. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management, thus, submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in summarily rejecting the claim of the workmen for their regularization and answering the reference in native. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management, thus, submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in summarily rejecting the claim of the workmen for their regularization and answering the reference in native. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials available on record. Vide Order No.L-20012/444/1994/IR (C-1) dated 21st February, 2017, the Central Government through the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad for adjudication:- “Whether the claim of the Union that Sh. Mangu Kumhar and Thirty other (as per list enclosed) were working at Bhurungia Project since 1985 is correct. If so, whether these workmen are eligible for regularization by the management of Bhurungia Colliery? If so, to what relief are they entitled?” 6. In Paragraph No.2 of the impugned award, learned Tribunal has mentioned that both sides adduced one witness each on their behalf. Moreover, the documents on behalf of the workmen were marked as Exts.W-1 and W-2. Thereafter, without any appreciation of the said evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, learned Presiding Officer directly came to the finding of the matter, making a brief observation with regard to the fact that the evidences adduced on behalf of the workmen are not sufficient to order for their regularization and, thus, the reference was answered in negative. 7. On perusal of the entire award, it cannot be said that the impugned award does contain any feature of an award in true sense. It was required by the learned Tribunal to reach a finding on the basis of appreciation of the evidence arrived at by it in the industrial adjudication and without appreciation of the evidence, the view taken by the learned Tribunal has no meaning. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait Vs. CIT, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1238 , in Para-33, 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. Sait Vs. CIT, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1238 , in Para-33, 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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Atlas Cycle Vs. Kitab Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 573 , in Para-15, 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 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.” 9. Though the respondent-Management has filed a detailed counter affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the concerned workmen represented through the Union were not entitled to any regularization, yet the said contention raised through filing of the counter affidavit in a writ proceeding would not justify the passing of the award by the learned Tribunal, which itself is bereft of factual appreciation. 10. As has already been discussed herein above, the impugned award is completely lacking the ingredients of an award in view of the fact that no evidence has been discussed at all before answering the reference made to it in negative. On that score only, the impugned award dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.60 of 1997 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for passing the award afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the both sides and on due appreciation of the evidences adduced by the parties within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the parties are not allowed to adduce further evidence in Reference No.60 of 1997. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.