ORDER : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and its Regional Manager for quashing the Award dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent No. 1') in favour of the workman Chowkidar Vindhyachal (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent No. 3'). It has been submitted that by the impugned Award dated 13.05.2015, the respondent No. 1 has neither answered the Reference made to it by the Central Government properly, nor it decided the dispute alleged to have arisen between the parties. 2. Sri Virendra Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, has submitted that the respondent No. 3 being a Chowkidar was allotted a residential quarter in the Central Warehouse situated at Gorakhpur on 28.9.1999 and by his letter dated 31.03.2003, the respondent No. 3 alleged that the roof of the quarter was leaking and the house needed urgent repairs and he may be permitted to vacate the same. Again by his letter dated 1.6.2003, he made the same request. The Warehouse Manager by his letter dated 08.07.2003 had asked the workman to retain the possession of his quarter till further orders. The Warehouse Manager was also approached by the Shramik Sangh i.e. the Labour Union and the Warehouse Manager informed the Labour Union (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2), by his letter dated 22.05.2006, that he had informed the Regional Office that the complaint of the workman is correct and that his quarter required major repairs. 3. The workman continued in possession of the quarter and did not inform the Management that he had vacated the same, nor did he handover its actual vacant possession or keys to the competent authority. It is the case of the Management that Chowkidars are always provided quarters within the campus of the Warehouse for ensuring its safety and security. There were three Warehouse Managers, namely, A.K. Srivastava, V.S. Vishwakarma and Mani Prasad, who were posted from 3.08.2002 to 2.08.2006, 3.08.2006 to 31.05.2008 and 1.06.2008 to 3.11.2011 respectively, who confirmed in writing that the quarter in question remained in possession of the workman throughout. 4. There were three Warehouse Managers, namely, A.K. Srivastava, V.S. Vishwakarma and Mani Prasad, who were posted from 3.08.2002 to 2.08.2006, 3.08.2006 to 31.05.2008 and 1.06.2008 to 3.11.2011 respectively, who confirmed in writing that the quarter in question remained in possession of the workman throughout. 4. It has been submitted that when the workman was required to submit the proof that he was residing outside the quarters allotted to him, the workman failed to submit any proof. He only referred to his letters dated 22.04.2006 and 22.05.2006 either to show that the quarter was uninhabitable or that he had handed over vacant possession of the said house to the competent authority. A Ration card was submitted, which was issued on 12.11.2011, to show that he was residing at his home at Kuda Ghat, Gorakhpur. 5. It has also been submitted that the keys of the quarter were never handed over to the Warehouse Manager and during two inspections carried out, the house was unlocked by the respondent No. 3 himself to enable the inspection. It is evident that the quarters remained in possession of the respondent No. 3. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the quarter was allotted since September, 1999 to Vindhyachal, Chowkidar, but he informed the authorities that the quarter needed major repairs only in June, 2003. For four years, the respondent No. 3 was living in the quarter, but he did not take any care to maintain the same as a result whereof, Pipal and Bargad trees started growing on the roof which led to leakage, rendering the quarters liable for major repairs. It was the negligence and inaction of the respondent No. 3, which was responsible for the quarter becoming uninhabitable. For four years, the respondent No. 3 did not make any request for repairs, which only meant that at the time of allotment, the accommodation was in good living condition. 7. It has been submitted that all these pleadings were taken in the written statement filed by the Management before respondent No. 1 but unfortunately the representative of the Corporation had failed to examine or cross-examine the workman during the course of hearing before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 ignored the submissions made in the written statement and allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent No. 3 arbitrarily. 8. The respondent No. 1 ignored the submissions made in the written statement and allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent No. 3 arbitrarily. 8. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 during the course of hearing. This court has gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri J.P. Sharma. 9. In the counter affidavit, reference has been made to the claim raised by the workman and also to the evidence submitted on affidavit by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. 10. It has been denied that the workman did not inform the management in time to undertake repairs of the quarters allotted to him. The workman had sent letters repeatedly to the management to allow him to vacate the quarters and to undertake repairs as the quarter was uninhabitable. When his request was not being heard, the workman requested the Secretary of the Labour Union who took up the case and raised the matter in conciliation proceedings. 11. Even During the conciliation proceedings, an inspection of the quarter was carried out, where it was found that the quarter was indeed inhabitable. Only thereafter, work order was issued for carrying out major repairs. After the repairs were carried out, the workman re-occupied the quarter in November, 2011. 12. It has been submitted that there were two reports dated 22.10.2010 and 15.07.2011 of the representatives of the Management which had found that the roof of the accommodation was leaking at several places and the septic tank as well as pipelines were all in a damaged condition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, this Court has also gone through the Award dated 13.05.2015. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal in the following terms:- "Whether the action of the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation Lucknow and the Gorakhpur allotting uninhabitable accommodation to Sri Vindhyachal Chaukidar and deduction of House rent from his salary w.e.f. 1.6.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workmen is entitled to? 14. The Reference was marked to the Labour Union with a direction to the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim along with the relevant documents. If not, to what relief, the workmen is entitled to? 14. The Reference was marked to the Labour Union with a direction to the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim along with the relevant documents. The statement of claim was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the management had deducted House Rent Allowance illegally from the salary of the workman, although he had vacated the quarter allotted to him in June, 2003. 15. The Labour Union had sent a letter on 28.08.2003 to the Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, requesting that the workman had vacated the quarter on 1.06.2003. The Regional Manager referred the letter to the Warehouse Manager Gorakhpur on 08.09.2003. The Warehouse Manager did not submit any report for three years. The Warehouse Manager Gorakhpur wrote to the Regional Office Lucknow only in 2006. 16. The respondent No. 1 has referred to the report submitted by a Four Members' Inspection Committee on 22.10.2010 that the quarter of Chowkidar of Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur required major repairs. Trees had grown over the roof which led to leakage in the ceiling and the roots had entered in the kitchen and the bathroom through the ceiling and the walls. All the sun shades of the windows were damaged. The respondent No. 1 has also referred to the fact that during the conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) Lucknow, another Four Members' Committee submitted a report on 15.04.2011, wherein the Committee also reported heavy leakages in the ceiling and the walls due to roots of trees damaging them, re-plastering was also urgently required at some places. The septic tank of the chowkidar quarters, with all connecting pipes was completely damaged. The total water supply fitting needed replacement, including four numbers of water storage tanks supplying water to all Chowkidar quarters. All windows/ventilator shutters required major repairs/replacement, including all electrical fittings. Two numbers of new steel doors were required over the roof to prevent the entry of monkeys etc in the quarters. The WC pan required its raising by about one and a half feet from the existing level including providing new flushing cistern as the Chowkidar quarters were 2 feet below the main road due to which water stagnated around the quarters resulting in septic tank overflow and sludge was found scattered around the campus. The WC pan required its raising by about one and a half feet from the existing level including providing new flushing cistern as the Chowkidar quarters were 2 feet below the main road due to which water stagnated around the quarters resulting in septic tank overflow and sludge was found scattered around the campus. Sand earth filling and brick on-edge-soiling was required to raise the height of the quarters. All electric fittings required replacement. White washing was also required and the approximate minimum expenditure on repairs and maintenance was estimated at Rs. 3,20,000/-. 17. The respondent No. 1 placing reliance upon the two Committees' reports came to a conclusion that the complaint made by the respondent No. 3 was genuine. It also noticed that during the second inspection by the Four Members Committee which submitted its report on 15.04.2011. The quarter was found unlocked. It meant that the workman had vacated the quarter sometime in 2011 before the second inspection. 18. In the written statement of the management it was stated that since the respondent No. 3 had failed to produce evidence that during the period from 2003 to 2011, he was residing elsewhere on rent or in his own house outside the campus, he was not legally entitled to return of House Rent deducted from his salary. An affidavit was filed by the workman, denying the allegations levelled by the Management in the written statement and reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement of the Labour Union and praying for refund of deducted House Rent Allowance for the period between June 2003 to May 2011 alongwith penal interest @ 18% per annum. The respondent No. 1 noticed that three affidavits had been filed by the respondent No. 3 along with the documents to show that he constantly requested for repairs of his quarter and also for not deducting House Rent Allowance from his salary. The Management did not file any evidence in support of their written statement or in reply to the affidavits filed by respondent No. 3. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the Management to cross examine the respondent No. 3. None appeared on behalf of the management on several dates. On 13.11.2014, an adjournment application was moved which was allowed on the payment of cost of Rs. 200. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the Management to cross examine the respondent No. 3. None appeared on behalf of the management on several dates. On 13.11.2014, an adjournment application was moved which was allowed on the payment of cost of Rs. 200. Neither the cost was paid, nor the authorised representative of the Management appeared in the Court on subsequent dates. The respondent No. 1 noticed gross negligence on the part of the Management. The respondent No. 1 also found on evidence submitted before it that the Warehouse Manager had directed the workman to remain in possession of the quarter till further orders. 19. The respondent No. 1 on the basis of the claim statement and the comprehensive affidavits of the respondent No. 3 came to a conclusion that the Management admitted that the quarter allotted to the chowkidar required thorough repairs. Two Committees were constituted. They submitted reports with regard to the need of repairs. The work order was issued by the Management and repairs were made thereafter. Hence, the respondent No. 1 had allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent No. 3 saying that un-inhabitable accommodation was allotted to Vindhyachal Chowkidar, which was unfair labour practice and the House Rent Allowance was arbitrarily deducted from his salary with effect from 01.06.2003 to 11.05.2011, which was illegal and unjustified. It directed the Management to refund the same to the workman within two months from the date of notification of the Award by the Government of India. 20. This Court has also gone through the pleadings on record before the respondent No. 1. The claim statement of the respondent No. 3 and the affidavits of Vindhyanchal Chowkidar-the respondent No. 3 refer to copious correspondence undertaken by the workman and the Labour Union with the Management at Gorakhpur and Lucknow to carry out repairs in Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur. From the letters exchanged between the parties, it is evident that Vindhyanchal chowkidar reported about seepage in his quarter initially in June 2003. The Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur by means of his letter dated 7.07.2003, had informed the Regional Office about status of the quarter and the amount of repairs needed. At the same time, the Warehouse Manager directed the respondent No. 3 not to vacate the quarter till further orders. Nothing was done thereafter by the Management. 21. The Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur by means of his letter dated 7.07.2003, had informed the Regional Office about status of the quarter and the amount of repairs needed. At the same time, the Warehouse Manager directed the respondent No. 3 not to vacate the quarter till further orders. Nothing was done thereafter by the Management. 21. The workman also approached the General Secretary of the Labour Union, who in turn, wrote a letter on 28.08.2003 to the Regional Office that the workman had vacated the quarter on 1.06.2003 and that his House Rent Allowance be not deducted from his salary. The Regional Office by its letter dated 8.09.2003 asked the Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur about the condition of the quarter allotted to the workman. The Warehouse Manager only replied on 22.05.2006 that the quarters needed repair. 22. The respondent No. 3 wrote letters dated 22.04.2006 and 22.05.2006 which showed that the repair had not been done till June 2006. The workman again wrote to the General Secretary of the Labour Union on 7.04.2010 regarding his grievance of deduction of H.R.A. from his salary, despite having vacated the quarter in June 2003, and the General Secretary of the Labour Union by his letter dated 16.04.2010 informed about the same to the Regional Office at Lucknow. The Regional Office asked for an explanation from the Warehouse Manager Gorakhpur. It was only thereafter that the site was inspected in mid-2010. A copy of the Committee's Report and the work estimate dated 10.10.2010 made by the Junior Engineer is also on record. The Regional Office by a letter dated 1.04.2011 directed for constitution of a Committee headed by the Warehouse Manager and having the Assistant Engineer and one representative of the Labour Union also in it. The report of the Committee of May, 2011 resulted in order being passed on 4.10.2011 by the Regional Office directing that H.R.A. be not deducted from the salary of Vindhyachal, Chowkidar with effect from 12.05.2011. 23. From the correspondence undertaken between the parties, almost all of which was on record of the respondent No. 1, this Court is convinced that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order of the respondent No. 1. A Chowkidar was a class IV employee and he could only approach the authorities by writing letters to them. When he was not heard, he asked the Labour Union to take up the cause. A Chowkidar was a class IV employee and he could only approach the authorities by writing letters to them. When he was not heard, he asked the Labour Union to take up the cause. The Labour Union after corresponding with the Warehouse Manager Gorakhpur and the Regional Office at Lucknow found that nothing was being done and threatened to go on strike, raising various demands including the demand for conducting repairs on chowkidar quarters situated at Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur. The matter was referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow who interfered in the matter and then only the Management woke up and constituted a Committee in May, 2010 to inspect the quarters and submit an estimate. During the conciliation proceedings, another Committee was constituted, which inspected the quarters and submitted its report in May, 2011. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow reported failure of conciliation proceedings and had referred the matter to the respondent No. 1. 24. The plea of the management that the workman continued to live in the quarter allotted to him is unreasonable, as the Committee had found that even after some repairs carried out allegedly in June, 2008, there was major seepage and the quarters also needed immediate repairs in May 2010. The reports of the two Committees constituted by the Management extracted in the Award go to show that Chowkidar's quarters in Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur were un-inhabitable as the septic tank and the water pipelines and electrical fittings all needed to be replaced. The quarters were situated 1-1/2 to 2 feet below the level of the road, resulting in overflowing of septic tank and sludge being spread around the campus. The condition of the Chowkidar quarters was such that no human being could have lived in them. Also, since the Warehouse Manager by his letter dated 8.07.2003 asked the Chowkidar to remain in possession of the quarter till further orders, it was too much to expect from a class four employee to obey the orders of his superior, and then turn around and say that the Chowkidar did not hand over the keys and vacant possession of the quarter. It was indeed unfair labour practice to deduct House Rent Allowance from the salary of the respondent No. 3 only because he obeyed the orders of the Warehouse Manager and did not hand over the keys to the Management. It was indeed unfair labour practice to deduct House Rent Allowance from the salary of the respondent No. 3 only because he obeyed the orders of the Warehouse Manager and did not hand over the keys to the Management. It is not the case of the Management that they had directed the respondent No. 3 to hand over the keys to some employee deputed for the purpose but the keys were not handed over. 25. In Pepsico India Holding Private Limited vs. Krishna Kant Pandey, 2015 (4) SCC 270 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered various judgments rendered by it earlier with regard to the parameters of judicial review of the Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. It observed in paragraphs-14 and 16 as under:- 14. While discussing the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution interfering with the facts recorded by the courts or the tribunal, this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [ (1986) 4 SCC 447 ], held as under: (SCC pp. 458-59, para 17) "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 (1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297 ] 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 re-appreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at AIR p. 1301 of the Report as follows: (SCC p. 864, para 7) '7. The special civil application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? The special civil application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Wary am Singh v. Amarnath [ AIR 1954 SC 215 ] (AIR p. 217, para 14) that the "power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [ AIR 1951 Cal 193 ], 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 Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division [ AIR 1958 SC 398 ] and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Court in that case: (AIR p. 413, para 30) "30. ...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 extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority."'" 16. In Indian Overseas Bank v. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [ (2000) 4 SCC 245 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 471], this Court considered a similar question with regard to the power of the High Court under Article 226 against the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. Reversing the decision of the Single Judge and restoring the fact-finding decision of the Tribunal, this Court held: (SCC pp. 259-60, para 17) "17. Reversing the decision of the Single Judge and restoring the fact-finding decision of the Tribunal, this Court held: (SCC pp. 259-60, para 17) "17. The learned Single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally re-appreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a tribunal, presided over by a judicial officer. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ court to warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken. The Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in its criticism of the order of the learned Single Judge and in ordering restoration of the award of the Tribunal. On being taken through the findings of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench, we are of the view that the Industrial Tribunal had overwhelming materials which constituted ample and sufficient basis for recording its findings, as it did, and the manner of consideration undertaken, the objectivity of approach adopted and reasonableness of findings recorded seem to be unexceptionable. The only course, therefore, open to the writ Judge was to find out the satisfaction or otherwise of the relevant criteria laid down by this Court, before sustaining the claim of the canteen workmen, on the facts found and recorded by the fact-finding authority and not embark upon an exercise of reassessing the evidence and arriving at findings of one's own, altogether giving a complete go-by even to the facts specifically found by the Tribunal below." 26. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction while sitting under Article 226 or 227 in judicial review of orders passed by the labour courts or the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act and can only interfere where a grave illegality or a perversity in the Award impugned is shown. 27. Having considered the Award under challenge, this Court finds that it has been passed after considering all facts and circumstances of the case. 28. This writ petition therefore cannot be entertained and is dismissed for want of merit. 29. No order as to costs.