JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna directed against the order/judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.399 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the Award passed in Reference Case No. 98 of 1999 has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein read hereunder as :- The respondent-workman namely Anwar Ahmad, Ex-Overman was the employee of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, hereinafter to be referred as CCL and while working in Kedla Open Cast Project, Hazaribagh was found to remain unauthorized absent as a result of which a chargesheet was issued stating therein that he was absent from 04.09.1992 which is misconduct within the meaning of Clause 17(i) Sub-Clause (n) and (d) of the Model Standing Orders. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated by appointing an inquiry officer wherein the charge has been found to be proved which having been accepted by the appellant management, a decision for dismissal from service was ordered on 06.01.1994. The respondent – workman raised a dispute against the order of dismissal, conciliation having been failed, after submission of failure report by the Conciliating Officer, a reference has been made to the effect – “Whether the action of the management of Kedla Open Cast Project, M/s. Central Coalfield Ltd. P.O. – Kedla, Distt. – Hazaribagh, in terminating of service of Sh. Anwar Ahmad, Ex-Overman w.e.f. 06.01.1994 is legal & justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” The Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference being Reference No. 98 of 1999 in favour of the respondent workman holding therein that terminating the service of Shri Anwar Ahmad, Ex-Overman with effect from 06.01.1994 is not justified, hence his service benefits as if he is in service be given to his dependent. But the workman is not entitled to get any back wages. But the workman is not entitled to get any back wages. The appellant-management, being aggrieved with the said Award, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 399 of 2014 which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2019, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that even though the evidence has been laid to justify the order of dismissal but it has been recorded that no evidence has been laid, as such, according to him, there is material error of fact and on this ground alone, the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the charge of unauthorized absence being serious in nature and is a misconduct under the Model Standing Orders and when the charge has been found to be proved by the inquiry officer, the reference having been answered in favour of the workman cannot be said to be correct and hence the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the Award but having not done so, error has been committed and as such the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. It is evident from the record that one Caveat has been filed being Caveat No.190 of 2019. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel, has put his appearance to represent the workman. It has been submitted by him that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the fact which has been agitated about leading of evidence before the Tribunal by the management of CCL is absolutely incorrect since no evidence has been laid by the employer even though opportunity was granted by the Tribunal and that is the reason learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that for reasons best known to the employer, the opportunity has not been availed and the Tribunal accordingly held the order or dismissal illegal as there was no material available on record justifying the order of dismissal and therefore, there is no error in the impugned order hence the same may not be interfered with. 6. 6. It is evident from order dated 15.06.2020 passed by this Court on the last date of hearing, that the learned counsel for the appellant had sought for an adjournment on the pretext that a proposal for settlement has already been sent to the competent authority and if such proposal is accepted, the same would render this appeal infructuous and accordingly, this Court had granted adjournment till today i.e. on 01.07.2020. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the CCL has submitted that there is no scope of settlement and as such, order may be passed on merit. 7. This Court, therefore, has proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. Admittedly, herein, the respondent workman was proceeded departmentally by initiating a domestic enquiry for unauthorized absence from 04.09.1992 for a period of more than ten days. The workman appeared before the inquiry officer and defended the charge, as would appear from the Award which is available on record by way of Annexure-2. The domestic enquiry was found to be unfair by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the fact that due to mental illness the concerned workman died and to that effect the dependent of workman filed photocopy of death certificate and therefore, order of dismissal has been held to be unjustified as because even before dismissal the workman has died. The appellant-management has assailed the said Award by filing the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 399 of 2014 but the same has been declined to be interfered with on the ground that the domestic enquiry was found not fair and proper and even though opportunity was granted by the Tribunal to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal, but no evidence was laid. 8. It is settled position of law that the power of writ court as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited so far as the judicial review of the fact finding recorded by the Tribunal is concerned. At this juncture, it would be proper for this Court to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. At this juncture, it would be proper for this Court to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. Radhakrishnan and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1964 477 Supreme Court, wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have been pleased to held as follows:- “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, 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. Similarly, 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. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.” In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sawarn Singh and Another Vrs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 for issuance of writ of certiorari has been please to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of interference with the finding of the tribunal has been please to hold by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 at para 17 has held as under:- “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: …...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose V. Commr. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” It is evident from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the judgments as referred hereinabove, the power of judicial review being limited in nature and that can only be exercised in case of any perversity in finding or if the Award suffers from jurisdictional error. 9. We have examined the Award vis-à-vis the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that in the preliminary enquiry the charge has been found to be proved which has been held unfair and improper by the Tribunal and the order, by which the preliminary has been held unfair and improper by the Tribunal, was not challenged by the management. The Tribunal, after observing the settled position of law that in case the preliminary enquiry is held to be unfair and improper, opportunity to lead evidence is to be provided to the management, has provided such opportunity but the same has not been availed and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion holding the punishment of dismissal as unjustified with a direction to treat the employee in service and as such, direction was given for disbursement of service benefits in favour of his dependent, however, without any back wages. It is admitted position that the preliminary enquiry since has been held to be unfair and improper which has not been challenged by the management and to justify the dismissal no evidence was laid as such, Tribunal was having no option but to come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was unjustified. It is admitted position that the preliminary enquiry since has been held to be unfair and improper which has not been challenged by the management and to justify the dismissal no evidence was laid as such, Tribunal was having no option but to come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was unjustified. Therefore, according to our considered view, the Tribunal has proceeded in right perspective and in accordance with law and when in that circumstances the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the Award, the same cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. We have come to such conclusion by putting reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred hereinabove since according to our considered view, it is not a case of perverse finding or having jurisdictional error, therefore, the order impugned requires no interference. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of the above, Caveat No.190 of 2019 and I.A. No.7617 of 2019 also stand disposed of.