TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) ONE Sheo Chand, resident of village -Saraisedgarh, P.O. Sadiabad, District Gazipur (U.P.) is said to be one of the 500 (five hundred) workmen who was supposed to have been taken in employment pursuant to a settlement recorded in CWJC No. 995/1976 (R).
(2.) ONE Sheo Chand alias Sudarshan of Village -Shekhpur, P.O. Birnu, District - Gazipur (concerned workman/respondent No. 2) claiming himself to be the person referred to above, i.e. Sheochand of Village -Saraisedgarh, got employment with the management. On confidential information, the management came to a conclusion that this other person, i.e. Sheo Chand alias Sudarshan (Respondent No. 2) was an imposter. However, at paragraph 4 (running page 40) of the written statement, the management has specifically stated that they were "not having any particulars with regard to the workman concerned in that case as the above case was relating to stoppage of about 500 workmen of Jealgora Colliery by the management of East India Coal Company in the year 1965". It is an admitted fact that as per direction of the High Court in CWJC No. 995/1976 and in terms of the settlement, a workman named Sheo Chand was to be given employment in the colliery as miner/loader. The management heavily relied upon the BDOs certificate before the Enquiry Officer as well as before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad which showed that Bhamia Devi (MW 6) was the wife of Sheochand of Saraisedgarh and that Sheochand of Village -Saraisedgarh who was employed at Jealgora Colliery at the time of the strike and thereafter went home where he died after 3 to 4 years. However, it is not clear as to what were the materials before the management to come to a definite conclusion that the concerned workman was an imposter specially when at paragraph 4 of the written statement they have said that they did not have any particulars with regard to the workman concerned in the case which was pending before the High Court relating to 500 workmen amongst whom Sheochand was one of the persons who was supposed to be given employment in the colliery. Additionally, MW 6 (Bhamia Devi) was not identified by anybody as the wife of Sheochand. These factual aspects have been dealt with by the Presiding Officer and therefore, this Court under Article 226, cannot sit as a Court of Appeal of the Award, especially when serious and disputed questions of facts are involved. There is nothing to show or establish that the Award is either perverse or blatantly irregular. Moreover, the statements of MW 4 and MW 5 were taken by the management but there is no explanation as to why these people who were already in the employment of the BCCL did not bring these facts to the notice of the management and why did they, after so many years, suddenly start giving evidences in favour of the management and against the workman.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Award. This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.;