JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.A. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application is directed against the Award dated 25.08.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Reference Case No. 140 of 1995 by which the reference has been answered in favour of the management by holding that the action of the management of Bararee Colliery in dismissing Shri Alijan Mian, Mason from the service is justified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. A further direction has been sought for upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner who was in service in Bararee Colliery as a Mason on compassionate ground was issued a charge-sheet on the allegation that he had committed a serious misconduct under the Certified Standing Order of the Company. An inquiry was conducted and since the charges were proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide letter dated 20.09.1993 issued under the signature of the Project Officer, Bararee Colliery. An industrial dispute was raised and on failure of conciliation proceeding, by virtue of notification dated 18.10.1995, the Central Government Ministry of Labour had referred the dispute for adjudication to the tribunal and the terms of reference are as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery in dismissing Shri Alijan Mian, Mason from service is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Alijan Mian is entitled?” 4. The workman has filed the written statement in which it was stated that in 1975 his elder brother Chhote Etwari Mian who was employed at Bararee Colliery as Miner/Loader died in an accident. The father of the petitioner at that point of time was working in the same colliery. The petitioner was offered employment on the recommendation of his father and accordingly the petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1976. It has been stated that on 13.09.1991, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging that he had obtained service by illegal means. The charge-sheet was issued on the complaint made by Sayojan Khatoon wife of Chhote Etwari Mian. The petitioner was offered employment on the recommendation of his father and accordingly the petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1976. It has been stated that on 13.09.1991, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging that he had obtained service by illegal means. The charge-sheet was issued on the complaint made by Sayojan Khatoon wife of Chhote Etwari Mian. It has further been stated that the domestic inquiry which was held suffered from various deficiencies - the complainant had not appeared, the police report was given much importance and the original application regarding employment was never produced in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner. It has also been stated that all the authorities had given certificates in favour of the petitioner, but such documents were never properly considered. 5. In the written statement cum rejoinder on behalf of the management, it has been stated that the petitioner was offered employment in BCCL on 22.04.1976 by the management and the bio-data furnished by him indicated his father’s name as Birbal Mian and his village as Kewaltand. On a complaint having been received that the petitioner was an imposter, a verification was conducted and it was found that the father’s name of the petitioner is Ghamari Mian and his village was at Baghmara. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.09.1991 for violating the provisions of Clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Orders. The reply given by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and accordingly submitted the inquiry report and vide letter dated 28.09.1993, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. It has been stated by Mr. R.A. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Award dated 25.08.2004 and the order dated 25.05.2004 holding the inquiry to be fair and proper is perverse, erroneous and not in accordance with law. It has been stated that the official records disclosing the father’s name of the petitioner and his home address were never produced by the management in spite of the specific demand made by the petitioner. Learned counsel adds that the order of dismissal is based on police verification report dated 31.07.1991, but the concerned police officer was never examined in either of the proceedings. Learned counsel adds that the order of dismissal is based on police verification report dated 31.07.1991, but the concerned police officer was never examined in either of the proceedings. He has stated that certificate of the BDO, Jamua as well as the Mukhia were produced which indicate that his father’s name was Birbal Mian @ Ghamari Mian which remained un-rebutted, but it was not considered either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Tribunal. It has been submitted that documents were produced executed by Sabia Khatoon and Ismail Mian, the wife and son of late Chhote Etwari Mian to the effect that the petitioner is not the son of Birbal Mian which was also exhibited, but not considered in the inquiry proceedings. It has been submitted that the copy of the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry report were not supplied to the petitioner which was in violation of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. 7. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has stated that the domestic inquiry was held to be fair and proper and the same has not been challenged earlier or in the present writ application. It has been stated that the Award cannot be termed to be perverse. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel adds that the reliance of the petitioner in certificate of BDO is misconceived as the source of such finding has never been given. 8. The petitioner was dismissed from service on account of he being found guilty in the departmental proceeding for securing employment on compassionate ground by claiming himself to be the son of Birbal Mian. After the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal, a preliminary issue was decided as to whether the domestic inquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The order dated 25.05.2004 was neither challenged in a separate proceeding or in the present writ application as the petitioner seems to have confined his prayer only with respect to the perversity or otherwise of the Award dated 25.08.2004. The petitioner claims that he is the son of Birbal Mian whose alias name is Ghamari Mian and that there has been no suppression from his side. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, witnesses were examined and documents were also exhibited. Two documents in particular were taken note of by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner claims that he is the son of Birbal Mian whose alias name is Ghamari Mian and that there has been no suppression from his side. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, witnesses were examined and documents were also exhibited. Two documents in particular were taken note of by the learned Tribunal. Exhibit M/3 is the police report which reveals that the petitioner is the son of Ghamari Mian who is the brother-in-law of Birbal Mian. Exhibit M/7 is an application which has been filed by the petitioner in which he has disclosed that he was four years old when his father Ghamari Mian died and it was Birbal Mian, who had nurtured him and brought him up. A share of movable and immovable property was also given to him by Birbal Mian. He had also stated that it was Sabijaon Khatoon, the widow of Chhote Etwari Mian who had nominated him for being appointed on a compassionate ground. The said factual aspects reveal that although the petitioner has close ties with the family members of Birbal Mian and out of love and affection, he was nominated by the widow of Chhote Etwari Mian which in fact disqualifies the petitioner of getting a compassionate appointment, moreso, when the facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he was adopted by Birbal Mian. The reliance of the petitioner on the report of the BDO that Birbal Mian and Ghamari Mian are one and the same person is also unfounded and unconvincing, since the basis of arriving at such conclusion was absent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the police report cannot be a substantial piece of evidence since the enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner and in such context, reference has been made to the case of Md. Sugair Ahmed Constable vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2015 (4) JLJR 210 . The relevant part of the order relied upon is quoted thus: “16. Sugair Ahmed Constable vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2015 (4) JLJR 210 . The relevant part of the order relied upon is quoted thus: “16. Since the enquiry itself is perverse and non-est in the eye of law in view of the reliance on a preliminary enquiry held behind the back of the petitioner and since the burden of proof of his innocence have been shifted upon the petitioner and since the order of the disciplinary authority itself shows total non-application of mind as the same is cryptic in such circumstances the question as to whether prejudice was caused for non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner is left upon.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 and has referred to the following: “16. The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11-A in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation, etc. in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11-A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation, etc. in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11-A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11-A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry.” 11. The contention of the petitioner while placing reliance on the case of Md. Sugair Ahmed (supra) is misconceived as the preliminary inquiry which has been conducted was found to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The said order has been challenged for the first time not through the writ petition, but by virtue of an oral submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are no allegations of victimization, mala-fide or unfair labour practice made by the petitioner against the management. Moreover, the finding of the police report has been substantiated by the own application of the petitioner (Exhibit M/7) in which he admits to be the son of Ghamari Mian. The petitioner has failed to controvert the police report, rather his application seems to suggest that he had accepted the contents of the police report. 12. Moreover, the finding of the police report has been substantiated by the own application of the petitioner (Exhibit M/7) in which he admits to be the son of Ghamari Mian. The petitioner has failed to controvert the police report, rather his application seems to suggest that he had accepted the contents of the police report. 12. Since it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had secured employment by misrepresentation which was a serious misconduct in terms of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company and since proper appreciation has been made by the learned Tribunal to the factual and legal aspects of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned Award dated 25.08.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 140 of 1995 and accordingly, the present writ application sans merit is hereby dismissed.