The High Court will not interfere with the findings of a Labour Court or Tribunal on appraisal of evidence, even if erroneous in law, unless the finding is perverse in law or fact.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 18-12-91 passed by respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad in reference case No. 64/89.

2. It appears that by order dated 24th May, 1989, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:

Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Area No. Ill of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Sonardih, Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Rajandan Singh is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

3. The case of the management is that on 11-5-83 at about 11 a.m. a mob of about 200 persons, armed with deadly weapons, committed several acts of violence on the person of Sri H.N. Tripathy, General Manager of Barora Area. The said mob abused Sri Tripathy and threatened him. with dire consequences within the precincts and premises of his office at Barora. The said mob committed various acts of mischief and caused damage to valuable properties belonging to H.N. Tripathy and the management. Ramanand Singh, a workman of the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. posted at the relevant time at Kharkharee colliery of Govindpur Area, was a member of the above violent mob ; he led the violent mob, committed various acts of violence and mischief, instigated and incited the mob to commit various acts of violence, mischief and subversive of discipline.

4. It transpires from the record that the workman concerned was charge-sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the workman concerned have been proved as a result of which the workman concerned was dismissed from service.

5. As noticed above an industrial dispute was raised and ultimately the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal, on the basis of the materials on record which includes the entire records of the departmental proceedings, came to a finding that the charges against the workman concerned have not been proved. Accordingly, the order of dismissal of the workman concerned was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits with effect from the date of his dismissal from his service. Hence, this writ application.

6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management-petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal, contrary to facts and evidences on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not only committed error of law but also error of facts and there is total perversity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Mr. Mehta has drawn my attention to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and submitted that although there is clear-cut evidence about the involvement of the workman concerned in assaulting Mr. Tripathy but the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidences and simply brushed aside the evidences merely by saying that the other witnesses contradicted themselves. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was ex pane inquiry inasmuch as the workman concerned did not participate in the departmental proceeding nor cross-examined the witnesses but the Tribunal has illegally come to the conclusion that, there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the workman concerned,

7. On the other hand Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman concerned submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses and from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer it will appear that the whole finding is that the workman was leading the mob and there is no specific finding that this workman has in fact assaulted Mr. Tripathy. Learned Counsel further submitted that the other witnesses have