JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Employer-Management of the Punjab National Bank for the issuance of a writ/writs/or order/orders of direction/directions for quashing the Award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 161 of 2000 whereby the Employer- Management of Punjab National Bank is directed to reinstate and thereby regularize the services of the Workman-Respondent No.3 with all benefits from the date of termination of his services. 2. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Bank and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the Union of India. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank that the impugned Award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 161 of 2000 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 was not at all a workman under the erstwhile New Bank of India or the petitioner and as such the entire proceeding is completely without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 is not a Workman and as such the dispute raised by him is not at all an industrial dispute. It is submitted that a personal driver engaged for the personal services of the executive of erstwhile New Bank of India cannot create an Employer and Employee relationship with the petitioner-Bank. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has miserably failed to prove that he was a Workman under the erstwhile New Bank of India or the Punjab National Bank. It is submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred in law since from the very pleadings and the evidence adduced by the Respondent No.3 it was conclusively proved that there never existed any relationship of Employer and Employee either with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with the petitioner-Punjab National Bank and as such the Respondent No.3 was not a Workman as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the settlement dated 08.01.1990 (Ext. It is submitted that the settlement dated 08.01.1990 (Ext. W 1) executed and between only the Management of the erstwhile New Bank of India with All India NBI Employees’ Federation, has not arisen out of and in course of conciliation proceeding and hence it is not at all enforceable against the petitioner-Bank and in the aforesaid settlement dated 08.01.1990 (Ext.-W.1) the Government of India was not a party to the same and as such same cannot be enforced against the petitioner-Bank. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 had not exhibited any document to establish and prove any relationship of Employer and Employee either with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with the petitioner-Punjab National Bank. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Respondent No.3 has not exhibited any documentary proof like appointment letter, attendance register, wages register, transfer order, owner book in the name of the Bank, log book, dismissal order etc. showing any semblance of a relationship of Employer and Employee with the erstwhile New Bank of India or with Punjab National Bank. It is submitted that Respondent No.3 was the personal driver of the Executive of the New Bank of India and as such his engagement by the said officer of the Bank who in turn paid to the Respondent No.3 for his personal services cannot be conferred the status of a Workman upon him and hence, the impugned Award may be set aside as the petitioner is not a Workman under the provision of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the other hand, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Workman-Respondent No.3, it appears that the Workman-Respondent No.6 joined his service in the Bank in December, 1988 initially at Kolkata and thereafter in May, 1990 he was transferred in the same capacity and was posted at Patna. It appears that in Patna he was attached with the Regional Manager, Bank of India where he continued to serve the Regional Manager, New Bank of India as Driver until the New Bank of India got amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank through New Bank of India (Amalgamation & Transfer of Undertaking) Scheme in September, 1993. It is stated that due to scheme of September, 1993 the Management of New Bank of India was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank with effect from 04.09.1993. It is stated that due to scheme of September, 1993 the Management of New Bank of India was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank with effect from 04.09.1993. It is also stated that under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act a settlement was arrived at between the Management of New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees Federation on 02.01.1990 and according to the terms and conditions of the settlement the Bank is duty bound to absorb all those drivers engaged and attached with the New Bank of India fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the settlement and thereafter, be treated as regular employee in the sub- ordinate cadre. It is stated that after completing three years of service on 09.04.1992 the Workman- Respondent No.3 was provided with all the facilities i.e. regular salary, periodical uniforms etc. and pursuant to the memorandum of settlement he had made application for regularization/absorption on 10.04.1992 through proper channel and thereafter also written letter to the then Regional Manager, New Bank of India to consider his case in view of the scheme and also in view of the fact that he possessed all requisite qualification and he was suitable candidate for absorption/regularization in the service of the Bank as regular employee in the sub-ordinate cadre. It has also been stated that in the notification No. 1/2/93 BO(I) dated 04.09.1993 issued by the Central Government in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, it has been specifically undertaken by the Punjab National Bank that they will take over all assets and liabilities of the New Bank of India pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation. Earlier the salary account of Respondent No.3 maintained with the New Bank of India was also transferred to the Punjab National Bank bearing the same number B/114 after amalgamation and till date he had served the executive of the Punjab National Bank, his salary was being transferred in the aforesaid salary account. It is also stated that pursuant to Clause 4 (a) (i) of the settlement undertaking and clarification agreed to by the transferee Bank with the Workmen Union or Association from time to time shall automatically become applicable to the employees of the transferor bank in the same manner as applicable to the transferee bank, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme. It is submitted that the Punjab National Bank was duty bound to honour the agreement and to give effect the settlement since the said bank has taken over the assets and liabilities of the transferor bank. Upon transfer of the service to the Punjab National Bank he was attached to one Mr. S.K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Patna and after on month of his service when said S.K. Sachdeva was transferred, the Bank (PNB) orally terminated his services and did not allow him to join his duties with effect from October, 1993, hence the Workman has been wrongly terminated from service in violation of memorandum of settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act arrived at between the Management of New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees’ Federation It has also been stated that oral termination of service in any view of the matter is bad in law and the bank has committed manifest error in law in terminating the services of the Respondent No.3 by way of oral order and hence, thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 had raised Industrial dispute and Award has been passed in his favour, hence there is no illegality in the impugned Award dated 29.10.2009 and as such, this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. In reply to the submissions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Workman- Respondent No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there never existed any Employer and Employee relationship between the Respondent No.3 and the petitioner Bank or the erstwhile New Bank of India and as such the said Respondent No.3 is not a Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 was not employed either in the erstwhile New Bank of India or the petitioner bank and accordingly, the said Respondent No.3 was never paid any wages/salary by the erstwhile New Bank of India or the petitioner Bank. It is submitted that evidence conclusively proved that the Respondent No.3 was personally engaged by the Senior Executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India and as such the services of the Respondent No.3 was utilized as a personal driver by the said Executive and consequently the said Senior Executive was only given a facility/allowance of re-imbursement of the remuneration payable to the Respondent No.3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 was never paid any wages/salary either by the erstwhile New Bank of India or petitioner-Bank. It is submitted that as per evidence and material adduced by the Respondent No.3, it is self-apparent that the said Respondent No.3 was engaged and paid as a Personal Driver of the Senior Executive (Regional Manager) of the erstwhile New Bank of India and the latter was being granted the allowances by way of re-imbursement facility by the said Bank. 6. Perused the records of this case and the Lower Court Record and considered the submission of both sides. 7. It transpires that the above writ petition was filed on 07.04.2010 and after appearance of the parties and after filing of the counter affidavit by the Respondent No.3, an Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 3109 of 2011 was filed by Workman- Respondent No.3 to pay him wages under the provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and which was allowed on 02.04.2012 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice N.N. Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) of this Court by directing the Management, i.e. the writ petitioner to pay wages to the concerned Workman-Respondent No.3 during pendency of the writ petition at the rate of pay last drawn by the Workman-Respondent No.3 in terms of provisions of Section 17(B) of Industrial Disputes Act. 8. It further transpires that the above writ petition was admitted on 17.08.2016 by a Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, as then His Lordship was) of this Court. Thereafter, another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.08.2019, had called for the records of the Reference Case No. 161 of 2000 from the Court concerned through the special messenger and the Workman- Respondent No.3 was directed to deposit the cost of special messenger by 30.08.2019. 9. It appears from the records that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the power conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/256/96-IR(B-II) dated 28th April, 2000. 10. The Schedule of Reference is as follows:- “Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh. 10. The Schedule of Reference is as follows:- “Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar Tiwary whose services were utilized as a driver by and Executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India is justified and legal? If not what relief is the disputant entitled to” & “Whether the disputant is entitled to regularization of his services in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 02.01.1990 entered between the Management or erstwhile New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees’ Federation in this regard ?” 11. It transpires from the Lower Court Records that the Workman-Respondent No.3 filed his written statement on 09.08.2000, whereas the petitioner-Bank has filed his Written Statement on 25.09.2001, whereafter, both the parties have been permitted to contest their case by legal practitioner vide order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. The Management-Bank could not produce any evidence and as such the evidence of the Management-Bank was closed on 06.11.2008 and the Workman-Respondent No.3 was directed to adduce his evidence on 08.01.2009. Even no document was marked on behalf the Management as the Exhibit. 13. The Workman-Respondent No. 3-Satish Kumar Tiwary, has examined himself as W.W.-1 and who was also cross-examined and discharged on 26.03.2009. 14. The Workman-Respondent No.3, in support of his case, got proved certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.W-1 is Letter dated 08.01.1990, issued by the New Bank of India to all the Branches with regard to settlement dated 02.01.1990 signed between the Management and All India New Bank of India Employees’ Federation regarding absorption of drivers attached with the Executives of the Bank in regular service of the Bank. (ii) Ext.W-2 is Letter dated 20.10.1992, issued by the Regional Manager, Bank of India to the A.G.M.(P), New Bank of India, Staff Department, New Delhi for absorption of the Workman-Respondent No.3-S.K. Tiwary, who was the personal Driver of Shri V.K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna. (iii) Ext.W-3 is the Letter dated 07.9.1992, sent by Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna to the A.G.M., New Bank of India, Staff Department, New Delhi forwarding him the application for absorption of the Workman as Peon. (iv) Ext. (iii) Ext.W-3 is the Letter dated 07.9.1992, sent by Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna to the A.G.M., New Bank of India, Staff Department, New Delhi forwarding him the application for absorption of the Workman as Peon. (iv) Ext. W-4 is Letter dated 20.10.1992, issued by the Regional Manager, Bank of India, Patna to the A.G.M.(P), New Bank of India, Staff Department, New Delhi for absorption of the Workman-Respondent No.3-S.K. Tiwary, who was the personal Driver of Shri V.K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna.. (v) Ext. W-5 is Letter dated 10.04.1993, sent by the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna to the Dy. Gen. Manager (Personnel), New Bank of India, Head Office, New Delhi for absorption of the Workman as Peon. (vi) Ext.W-5(A) is Pass Book of the Workman-Respondent No.3 issued by the New Bank of India (vii) Ext.W-6 is the Staff (Banking Division) Notification dated 04.09.1993, i.e. the gazette publication of the scheme called the New Bank of India [Determination of Placement of Employee (Officers and Workman) of the New Bank of India in Punjab National Bank] Scheme, 1993, with respect to amalgamation of the New Bank of Indian in Punjab National Bank. (viii) Ext.W-6(A) is the Circular dated 29.03.1993 issued by the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), New Bank of India for reimbursement of cost of Summer Uniform for personal drivers employed by the Bank’s Executives. (ix) Ext.W-7 is letter dated 13.02.1993, issued by the Dy. General Manager (P), New Bank of India for the drivers of Executives for revising the ceiling of reimbursement of salary of drivers in the personal employment of Executives w.e.f. 01.01.1993. (x) Ext.W-7(A) is the application of the Workman-Respondent No.3- Satish Kr. Tiwary sent to the Assistant General Manager (P), New Bank of India, Staff Department, Connaught Circus, New Delhi dated 20.10.1992, recommended by Shri V.K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna. 15. It transpires from the impugned Award that learned trial court on the basis of written statements filed by both the parties and also in the light of Ext.W-1, Ext.W-2, Ext.W-3, Ext.W-4 and Ext.W-5, Ext.W-5(A), Ext.W-6, Ext.W-6(A), Ext.W-7 and Ext. W-7(A) came to the conclusion that the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of the Workman-Shri Satish Kr. Tiwary, whose services were utilized by an Executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India is not justified and is not legal. W-7(A) came to the conclusion that the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of the Workman-Shri Satish Kr. Tiwary, whose services were utilized by an Executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India is not justified and is not legal. Consequently, the Workman- Respondent No.3 is entitled for regularization and all the benefits from the date of his termination in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 02.01.1990 entered between the management of erstwhile New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees’ Federation. 16. It transpires that the letter of the Management dated 07.09.1992 is important as by this letter Regional Manager, Patna had written letter for regularization of the concerned Workman on the ground that he has completed more than three years service as driver on 09.04.1992 and is therefore, entitled to be absorbed as Peon as per Bank’s circular. This letter is annexed with the letter dated 20.10.1992 of the Regional Manager, addressed to the Assistant General Manager for absorption of Respondent No.3, marked as Ext.W-2. 17. Through this letter dated 20.10.1992 marked as Ext. W-2, it has been written by the Regional Manager, Regional Office Patna to A.G.M (Personnel) for regularization and absorption of the concerned workman as Peon on the basis that he was working as personal Driver to Sri V.K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Patna. In this letter it has been mentioned that there has been settlement between the Management and All India New Bank of India Employees’ Federation signed on 02.01.1990. On this basis Regional Manager has written letter for regularization of the concerned Workman on the ground that he has completed three years of service as Driver on 09.04.1992 and he should be absorbed as Peon as per Bank’s Circular under Reference. 18. From perusal of Ext. W-3, it is evident that the Regional Manager had recommended the A.G.M. for absorption of the Workman-Respondent No.3 as Peon in the services of the Bank as per Bank’s Circular. 19. Again, as per Ext. W-5 which is a letter dated 10.04.1993, Regional Manager, Patna has written letter to the Dy. Gen. Manager (Personnel), New Bank of India, Head Office, new Delhi for regularization and absorption of the concerned Workman because he has completed three years of service on 09.04.1992 and he should be absorbed as Peon as per Bank’s Circular. 20. W-5 which is a letter dated 10.04.1993, Regional Manager, Patna has written letter to the Dy. Gen. Manager (Personnel), New Bank of India, Head Office, new Delhi for regularization and absorption of the concerned Workman because he has completed three years of service on 09.04.1992 and he should be absorbed as Peon as per Bank’s Circular. 20. As per Ext.-7 which is a circular letter dated 13.02.1993, the Bank has revised the ceiling of reimbursement of salary of Personal driver of the executive from 01.01.1993 and on perusal of the same, it transpires that the salary of the drivers who are in the personal employment of Executives. 21. It further reveals that the concerned Workman’s salary was also revised as per Bank’s circular and it shows that revised pay as per Bank’s Circular has been credited in the concerned Workman’s Account No. S/114 marked as Ext. W-5(A). 22. Ext.6 reveals that a merger scheme was prepared for the employees of New Bank of India into the Punjab National Bank and Clause 3 prescribes the procedure for redeployment of Officers/Staff and Clause 4 (iii) also prescribes for computation of years of service rendered in the transferor Bank for the purpose of determining the minimum length of service for promotion from subordinate cadre to Clerical cadre and also from Clerk to the Officer Cadre. 23. Again, as per Ext. W-6(A) which is a letter dated 29.03.1993 of Dy. G.M. (Personnel), which shows that personal drivers employed by the Executives has been allowed reimbursement of three sets of Uniform once in two years up to maximum Rs. 900/-, inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges. This shows that the concerned Workman, being personal driver of an Executive, was also allowed reimbursement of three sets of Uniform once in two years upto maximum of Rs.900/- inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges as per above Bank’s Circular. 24. Ext.W-6(A) reveals that the New Bank of India has also issued circular for reimbursing the cost of summer uniform of three sets once in two years up to maximum of Rs.900/- inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges. 25. 24. Ext.W-6(A) reveals that the New Bank of India has also issued circular for reimbursing the cost of summer uniform of three sets once in two years up to maximum of Rs.900/- inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges. 25. From perusal of Ext.W-7, it reveals that as per Letter dated 13.02.1993, the drivers in the personal employment of the Executives, have been allowed the salary of Rs.13,000/- per month at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, whereas salary of Rs.1,150/- per month is to be reimbursed at other places and which have been made effective from 01.01.1993. 26. It transpires from the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal that the learned Tribunal has considered the exhibits marked as Ext.W-1 to Ext.W- 7(A) respectively by the Workman-Respondent No.3 as discussed in detail at Paragraph 8 and 9 and has held in its finding that there is clear relationship of Employer and Employee between the concerned Workman- Respondent No.3 and the Management because the Workman-Respondent No.3 was paid salary by the Bank. The Tribunal has also given finding at Paragraph 7, by which he has come to the conclusion that the concerned Workman used to work with the Management as Driver in 1988 at Calcutta and he used to drive Ambassador Car No. WNF 8689. The Car belonged to Bank, The petrol in the vehicle used to be supplied by the Bank. The Bank also used to maintain logbook. At that time Shri G.P. Kapoor, who was the D.R.M. of Regional Office, Calcutta of the Bank. He was executive of the Bank. He used to ride on the car for execution of the job of Bank. Thereafter, Shri G.H. Tuli joined as D.R.M. of Regional Office, Calcutta. Then the concerned workman was transferred at Regional Office, Patna and he worked under the then Regional Manager Sri S.K. Soni and B.ki. Sachdeva as driver at Patna. He used to drive Car no. BR-1-C 2438. Car no. BR-1-o-2438 belongs to Bank. Accordingly, the concerned workman has worked continuously more than three years from 1988 to 1993 under the direct supervision and control of Executives of the New Bank of India, and thus the concerned Workman has completed more than 240 days in a year. 27. He used to drive Car no. BR-1-C 2438. Car no. BR-1-o-2438 belongs to Bank. Accordingly, the concerned workman has worked continuously more than three years from 1988 to 1993 under the direct supervision and control of Executives of the New Bank of India, and thus the concerned Workman has completed more than 240 days in a year. 27. Thus, this Court finds that the Award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 is fit and proper and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Award. 28. It is well settled from a catena of decisions that the Court need not interfere into the Award passed by the learned Tribunal or by the learned Labour Court below if it is demonstrably not illegal, without jurisdiction and based on no evidence. 29. It is well settled that the Writ Court will not interfere in the Award passed by the learned Tribunal if there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned Award. 30. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477 at Paragraph no.7 as follows:- “ Para 7:- 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. 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. 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 (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 .” 31. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 .” 31. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors ., reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233 , at Paragraph no.21 as follows : “ Para 21:- With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” 32. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 at Paragraph nos.12 and 13 as follows :- “ Para 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. 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) Para 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.” 33. Accordingly, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the discussions made above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, impugned Award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 161 of 2000 is, hereby, upheld. 34. Thus, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Court below.