ORDER : (Through: Video Conferencing) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Judgment dated 18.02.2016, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014, whereby learned Court has allowed the said case filed by the respondent-Sova Devi @ Shobha Devi under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “I.D. Act”) holding therein that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and as such, entitled for monetary compensation as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (for short “NCWA”). 3. It was the case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court that her husband, late Bihari Saw was employed under the petitioner-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short “ECL”). However, he died in harness on 18.10.2009 and after her death, the respondent-Sova Devi, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of late Bihari Saw approached the petitioner-ECL for payment monetary compensation but when the petitioner failed to fulfill her demand, she filed a claim petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, before the learned Labour Court, which was registered as M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014 and notices were issued to the management of ECL. Upon receipt of the notice, the Project Officer, Kumardhubi Colliery of M/s. ECL appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the claim petition filed by the applicant is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The ECL further stated that Shobha Devi failed to produce the death certificate of 1st wife of late Bihari Saw and also had failed to produce her marriage certificate. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, by its Judgment dated 18.02.2016 allowed the said M.J. Case observing therein that: “……………… the instant claim petition is hereby allowed in favour of the application and against the employer/OP on contest. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, by its Judgment dated 18.02.2016 allowed the said M.J. Case observing therein that: “……………… the instant claim petition is hereby allowed in favour of the application and against the employer/OP on contest. Consequently, employer/O.P. is directed to pay regularly the benefit of monetary compensation to the application as provided under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA as per prevailing rate time to time w.e.f. 13/04/2010 till the date she attained 60 years of age. OP is further directed to pay arrear of said benefit of monetary compensation to the applicant as per prevailing rate time to time from 13/04/2010 till the date of this order along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. within 60 days from passing of this order failing which O.P. will also liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum over the entire arrear amount from the expiry of said 60 days till the date of actual payment. OP is also liable to pay lump sum cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. According, the instant case is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost.” Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-ECL submits that claim petition filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act was not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Labour Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. inasmuch as until the right and entitlement of the applicant is decided, she would not be entitled to file claim petition before the Labour Court under the said Act. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that marriage between Shobha Devi and Bihari Saw is itself disputed and objection in this regard was raised by the petitioner-ECL and for petitioner-ECL she was treated as stranger, who just wants to grab the monetary benefits of deceased employee, Bihari Saw. The respondent-Shobha Devi also failed to produce the death certificate of Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, 1st wife of deceased employee and the marriage certificate showing solemnization of her marriage with Bihari Saw. The respondent-Shobha Devi also failed to produce the death certificate of Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, 1st wife of deceased employee and the marriage certificate showing solemnization of her marriage with Bihari Saw. Learned counsel further argues that Shobha Devi was the legally wedded wife of late Bihar Saw or not, was a disputed question of fact that could not be decided in a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act and as such, the Judgment passed by the learned Labour Court is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that there is no question of adjudication leading to determination of right and title of the respondent, as the same has already been decided by passing of the Award or settlement. Learned counsel further argues that simply by stating that the employer has disputed the marriage of Shobha Devi with the deceased employee, late Bihari Saw, the petitioner-ECL cannot deny the claim of the respondent. There are sufficient evidences to show that Sova Devi @ Shobha Devi is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The father of the deceased employee and others filed M.J. Case No. 73 of 2010 under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court where, in her evidence she has categorically stated in para-15 and 16 that present respondent i.e. Shobha Devi is the legally wedded wife of late Bihari Saw. Further, late Bihari Saw had filed nomination form in “Form-PS4” in CMPF Account in favour of Shobha Devi giving her 100% share as fresh nomination, cancelling the nomination filed earlier. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner-ECL has also enquired through Police regarding status of Shobha Devi being the wife of late Bihari Saw and the report was submitted by Police, which has been marked as Ext. X-1 and X-2 in M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014, wherein the Police has also confirmed that Shobha Devi is the legally wedded wife of late Bihari Saw. Learned counsel submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court and the respondent-Shobha Devi is entitled to receive the monetary compensation as per provisions of NCWA, on account of death of her husband, Bihari Saw. 6. Learned counsel submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court and the respondent-Shobha Devi is entitled to receive the monetary compensation as per provisions of NCWA, on account of death of her husband, Bihari Saw. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the findings of facts recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad for the following facts and reasons: (I) The impugned order has been passed on cogent reasons and evidence. (II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there is any perversity in the Award or it is without jurisdiction. (III) Finding of Labour Court cannot be challenged as the same has already been determined on the basis of cogent evidence. The issue of right and title of the respondent has already been set at rest, which cannot be questioned by the Management after passing of the judgment. (IV) The matter was duly enquired through the Police by the Management of ECL, which is at Ext. X-1 and X-2 in M.J. Case No. 20 of 2014, wherein the same has been confirmed in favour of the respondent. (V) When the factual aspect regarding legally wedded wife has been set at rest by leading evidence, the same cannot be questioned and legality and propriety of the same cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled law that findings of facts recorded by a Tribunal/ Labour Court requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 has held that a writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. Orders passed by inferior Courts or Tribunal, which are without jurisdiction or are in excess of it, fail to exercise jurisdiction a writ of certiorari can be issued. Where the Tribunal exercise jurisdiction illegally or improperly or the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposes to principles of natural justice, a writ under Article 226 of Constitution can be issued. Where the Tribunal exercise jurisdiction illegally or improperly or the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposes to principles of natural justice, a writ under Article 226 of Constitution can be issued. Similarly, the Apex Court in case of Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 has held that a finding of fact recorded by an inferior Tribunal, writ of certiorari can be issued only if, while recording such a finding, the Tribunal has acted on no evidence or has refused to admit admissible evidence or if the findings are not supported by any evidence at all. In such cases, the error amounts to an error of law. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in case of Krushna Narayan Wanjari Vs. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 620 , has held that: “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. 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.” 8. There is absolutely no infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness in the judgment dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, as the said judgment has been passed after careful examination of the evidences and materials available on record and also after proper appreciation of the provisions of law and as such, the same is held as sound and legal. 9. In view of the aforesaid propositions nothing much is left to be decided by this Court and hence, the Management is directed to act as per the Judgment dated 18.02.2016 and release the legally admitted dues to the petitioner, if not released till date, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. 10. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.