ORDER : Since both the writ petitions are arising out of the same Award, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P. (L) No. 5408 of 2012 has approached this Court for quashing of the Award dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No.08/1994-17/2020 whereby and whereunder the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry against the respondent was set aside and it was directed to reinstate the respondent-employee and to pay him 25% of the salary from the date of his dismissal to the date of reinstatement. 3. Similarly, the respondent-employee has also challenged a part of the said award dated 09.02.2012 vide W.P.(L) No. 3963 of 2012 to the extent it relates to payment of 25% of the salary as back wages. 4. As per factual matrix, the workman was an active member of Bihar Caustic Karamchari Sangh which was one of the union espousing cause of victimized employees of the management of its unfair labour Practice and even after threaten of the management he went on raising fund and creating the atmosphere of Trade Union Movement within the industries against the management. The management started inputting false allegation and in that process on frivolous allegation submitted the charge sheet on the alleged complaint of Arun Kumar Singh. As the present charge sheet was predetermined action to terminate him from the service to create an atmosphere of fear and favour among other workmen of the industries conducting an farcical enquiry in which Arun Kumar Singh did not turn up for providing him to be cross examined but even after the management exercised the colorable power and victimized the workman. 5. The Opposite Party M/s Bihar Caustic & Chemical Ltd. filed a Misc. case No.15/88 under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act for approval of action and in that case, the domestic enquiry was held to be fair, proper, valid and justified vide order dated 2.11.1993 of Industrial Tribunal. 5. The Opposite Party M/s Bihar Caustic & Chemical Ltd. filed a Misc. case No.15/88 under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act for approval of action and in that case, the domestic enquiry was held to be fair, proper, valid and justified vide order dated 2.11.1993 of Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceeding the workman raised the industrial dispute through concerned Department of Central Government and the Central Government vide its Notification No.4/D2/93 L & R-186 dated 24.1.1994 referred the following dispute before the Labour Court, Ranchi for adjudication: “Whether the dismissal of Sri Rama Shankar Shukla, Operator Bihar Caustic and Chemicals Ltd. Garhwa Road Palamau is proper ? if not, whether he should be reinstated on work or / and should get compensation ?” 6. After hearing the parties, at length, the learned Labour Court, Ranchi vide its Award dated 12.10.1998 answered the Award in negative against the respondent-workman holding therein that the respondent-workman is not entitled to get any relief. 7. Thereafter the workman moved the High Court (Ranchi Bench) by filing CWJC No. 3299 of 1999 which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 08.01.2003. Against this order the workman moved in L.P.A.No.283 of 2003 and the Division Bench of High Court vide order dated 14.05.2010 quashed and set aside the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.3299/1999 (R) and also set aside the award dated 12.10.98 of Labour Court passed in Reference Case No.8/94 and directed the Labour Court to examine the matter afresh with regard to charges and the punishment. 8. In purported compliance of the Order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 283 of 2003, the Labour Court, Ranchi re-examined the said Reference Case No. 08 of 1994, now numbered as Reference Case No. 17 of 2010-08 of 1994 and after hearing both sides made an Award dated 09.02.2012 observing therein that: “Accordingly it is held that the finding arrived at by the enquiring officer during the domestic enquiry is bad in law and not sustainable. Thereby it is set aside and consequently the order of the dismissal of the concerned workman from the service by the Management is set aside being a colourable exercise of power and victimization. Thereby it is set aside and consequently the order of the dismissal of the concerned workman from the service by the Management is set aside being a colourable exercise of power and victimization. So far the back wages are concerned this Court is of the view that since the matter is pretty old and the workman has to face so many problems of his livelihood and he must have engaged himself in gainful employment so he deserves to be given only 25 per cent of the salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The Management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman at once and pay him all the dues.” 9. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. Ref. Case No.08 of 1994/ 17 of 2010 the petitioner- Management has approached this Court for quashment of the same by filing W.P. (L) No. 5408 of 2012). 10. Likewise, the petitioner-workman has also approached this Court for quashment of part of the order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Labour Court in Ref. Case No.08 of 1994/ 17 of 2010 as he has been reinstated in service only with 25% back wages. 11. Learned Counsel for the Management Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further argues that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse on the ground that once the Industrial Tribunal had declared the said domestic enquiry fair and proper, the learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same issue. Learned Counsel further argued that Reference Case No. 08 of 1994/ 17 of 2010 was barred by principles of res judicata. 12. It has been further argued that the reference case is itself illegal since inception as the mandatory provision of law had flagrantly been ignored while making the said reference. 13. On the other hand in W.P. (L) No.3963 of 2012 the petitioner- workman has tried to make out a case that the finding arrived at by the Enquiring Officer during the domestic enquiry is bad in law and not sustainable and the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order has reinstated the workman as such he is entitled for full back wages. The learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on several judgments of this Court for payment of full back wages after reinstatement when the enquiry itself has been said to be bad in law. 14. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court finds that the instant case has got a chequered history which has travelled twice up-to the High Court and thereafter on remand the Tribunal has passed the order. The Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.283 of 2003 after considering every aspect of the matter and hearing the parties, remanded the matter to consider the case after examining the material witness. Admittedly, in awarding major punishment the Enquiry Officer could not have ignored the examination of the solitary witness. Since the enquiry was held to be bad in law on technicalities and punishment order was quashed by the Tribunal on the same ground it is not a case of complete exoneration from the charges and as such the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the workman is not accepted to this Court. No illegality has been pointed out neither any perversity has been demonstrated by both the parties and as such this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the evidence as an Appellate Court. 15. It is settled principle of law that this Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise evidence and come to a different conclusion. On the contrary, the findings of the learned Tribunal can only be interfered with, if there appears to be apparent illegality or perversity in the Award. The petitioner was heard and finding has been derived by the Labour Court which warrants no interference. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Krushna Narayan Wanjari Vs. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 620 , has held thus: 3. Having regard to the fact that the documents were produced before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to look into the same. After all, the Industrial Court had looked into the entire materials and had awarded the salary for the disputed period. Having regard to the fact that the documents were produced before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to look into the same. After all, the Industrial Court had looked into the entire materials and had awarded the salary for the disputed period. Unless the approach is wholly perverse in the sense that the Tribunal acted on no evidence, the High Court under Articles 226/227 is not justified in interfering with the award. It is not a court of first appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench Maharashtra is restored. 16. This Court is in full agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal dated 09.02.2012. 17. Accordingly, both the writ petitions merit dismissal and hence the same are hereby dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.