JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner/Management of M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd. has challenged the Award dated 27th October, 1995 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 41 of 1987 whereby the tribunal held that the action of the Management in denying appointment of Md. Suleman in place of his father Md. Rasool is illegal and unjustified and further directed the petitioner to give appointment with effect from January, 1987 and to pay 25% of the salary. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the power conferred on them under Section 10(1)(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputed to the tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the Management of Giridih Colliery of C.C. Ltd., P.O. Beniadih, Distt. Giridth in denying appointment to Shri Mohd. Suleman after his father was given voluntary retirement by the Management is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workmen entitled ?" 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. One Md. Rasool was a permanent worker of Giridih Colliery performing the duty as a material checker and he availed voluntary retirement scheme and applied for the same on 5.7.78 nominating his son Md. Suleman for employment in his place. As per report of the Medical Board dated 4.6.78 the said Md,.Rasool was declared medically unfit and a proposal of his voluntary retirement was sent to the Area Headquarters for approval together with recommendation for the appointment of his son Md. Suleman. Pursuant to such recommendation approval of the voluntary retirement and appointment of the son of Md. Rasool was given by the G.M. (B&K) and the said order was conveyed by the Personnel Manager, Kargali to the Project Officer, Giridih Colliery vide letter dated 27/28.8.80. The case of the workmen is that inspite of aforesaid approval he was compelled to continue in service and was not given opportunity to avail voluntary retirement scheme nor the Management gave appointment to his son. 3. The case of the workmen is that inspite of aforesaid approval he was compelled to continue in service and was not given opportunity to avail voluntary retirement scheme nor the Management gave appointment to his son. 3. On the other hand, the case of the Management is that although the matter of voluntary retirement was accepted by the Management and the order of appointment of his son was accorded but neither the workmen nor his son was eager to accept the same and he did not appear before the Medical Examination for getting employment. In the mean-lime, the workmen Md. Rasool continued to work in normal course and after attaining the age of superannuation he was superannuated with effect from 16.12.81. It is stated by the Management that there was an order of the Supreme Court to keep in abeyance the operation of voluntary retirement scheme till further order and as a result all concerned collieries were informed not to give benefit to such claim to any workmen. 4. The tribunal formulated the following points for consideration : (a) It is not disputed that Md. Rasul was employed in the permanent post and used to work as material checked at the Regional Stores. (b) It is admitted that he applied for voluntary retirement nominating his son Md. Suleman for employment in his place on 5.7.78. (c) It is admitted that Md. Rasul was declared unfit by the Medical Board at Giridih vide report dated 4.6.79 and proposal of voluntary retirement pursuant to such report sent to Area Head-quarters/B&K was approved by the competent authority, i.e. the G.M. Kargali and also approving the appointment of his son Md. Suleman and it was conveyed to Personnel Manager (B&K) Kargali to the Project Officer, Giridih Colliery vide letter No. PD/VR/BMB/463/23035, dated 27/28.8.1980. (d) It is also admitted that no appointment nor the effect of the recommendation of the Medical Board was given to the Management resulting the father of the concerned workman continued his work till retirement and no appointment was given to his son Md. Suleman. 5. The tribunal after considering the entire evidence orally and documentary has decided all the points in favour of the workmen. Suleman. 5. The tribunal after considering the entire evidence orally and documentary has decided all the points in favour of the workmen. For better appreciation relevant portion of the Award of the tribunal is quoted herein below : "Now the point is that the order of the G.M. was before such communication but the reasons best known to the P.M. Md. Rasul was not given the benefit which was granted by the G.M., the higher authority. After keeping in mind that the scheme of voluntary retirement was stayed by the Honble Supreme Court though nothing has been produced before this tribunal it is very hard to accept in toto that this scheme was kept in abeyance for ever nor this tribunal is aware what is the fate of such stay order. But the fact remains that the son of one Niranjan Singh whose case of voluntary retirement was refused by the highest authority was given appointment in the year 1986 under NCWA-III and thereby it may be well presumed that the order of the Honble Supreme Court was not in force otherwise obviously the management had no occasion to give such employment or if so done it was done in some consuflage for the reasons best known to them. It is very fantastic one that a man who was not entitled to get relief was allowed to get such relief but the man who was actually entitled to get so for some technical and for some flimsy ground having no basis has been by-passed for getting the opportunity which he is entitled to legitimately. This tribunal expresses his opinion that this type of treatment from the side of the management having no reason whatsoever is very unfortunate and this reflects the nepotism and gives a bad smell without performing the duties in fair manner. In view of the materials present on the record and in view of the appointment of the son of Niranjan Singh in different consuflage, if any, I think that Md. Rasul was forced to work till his retirement inspite of declaring him to be medically unfit. Therefore his son should be opportunity for getting an appointment in at least lowest category in the colliery which was even approved by the highest authority. Rasul was forced to work till his retirement inspite of declaring him to be medically unfit. Therefore his son should be opportunity for getting an appointment in at least lowest category in the colliery which was even approved by the highest authority. Incidentally this tribunal observes that it is an inhuman act on the part of the management to constrain a person to proceed with work who was found unfit by the Medical Board. A big question may arise that he proceeded with work till his retirement and took pension benefit etc. but in reply this tribunal is constrained to observe that in these hard days if a person in spite of physical unfitness be asked to proceed with the work, he has no other alternative than to proceed with the work even at the risk of his life when the management is not ready to show even some humanitarian treatment to a workman who had rendered his services for such a pretty long time and who for the reasons best known to them by-passed the order of the Medical Board and recommendation as well as of the General Manager which is admitted one to the effect that Md. Rasul was made medically unfit and his son Md. Suleman would be appointed in his place. This tribunal expresses his annoyance in such step-motherly like attitude by giving appointment to the son of a person in the year 1986 who was not found medically unfit but denying the services to the son of the person who was asked to give appointment by the highest authority on the basis of the medical report by the Medical Board, properly constituted by the management declaring the concerned workmans father to be unfit for the job. Therefore, I find that the action of the management of Giridih Colliery of M/s. CCL, P.O. Beniadih, Distt. Giridih in denying appointment to Md. Suleman after his father was given order for voluntary retirement was illegal and unjustified. However, when Md. Rasul was forced to continue to work till his age of superannuation and there was order of Honble Supreme Court as contended by the management though not shown any order before this tribunal, this tribunal would not go beyond his power if a direction is given to the management to give appointment of the son of Md. However, when Md. Rasul was forced to continue to work till his age of superannuation and there was order of Honble Supreme Court as contended by the management though not shown any order before this tribunal, this tribunal would not go beyond his power if a direction is given to the management to give appointment of the son of Md. Rasul from the date of this reference, i.e. from 1.1.87, with the reliefs as stated below Accordingly the Award is pjssed declaring that the action of the management of Giridih Colliery of CCL, P.O. Beniadih, Distt. Giridih denying appointment of Md. Suleman in place of his rather Md. Rasul is illegal and unjustified. The management is directed to give appointment to Md. Suleman in the lowest category of Category I in the management colliery on and from the date of reference, i.e. from 1.1.87. About the payment of back wages it is ordered that he will get 25% of the salary till date of effect of the Award as his father in whichever manner continued in service and enjoyed all other benefits in full. Of course, his seniority in service should be considered and counted from First of January, 1986 for all purposes in future. The management is directed to implement this award of appointment as well as payment of arrears of wages which have been granted as relief to Md. Suleman within one month from the date of, publication of the Award." 6. Mr. M.M. Banerjee assailed the award mainly on the ground that the tribunal was not justified in giving the award when admittedly the workmen Md. Rasul continued in service till the date of superannuation. Learned counsel mainly relief upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamala Chakraborty and others v. B.C.C.L. and others, (LFA No. 97/98R). 7. Before considering the merit of this case, it would be useful to discuss the facts of the case in CWJC No. 1647/97(R), which gave rise to LPA No. 97/98(R). Learned counsel mainly relief upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamala Chakraborty and others v. B.C.C.L. and others, (LFA No. 97/98R). 7. Before considering the merit of this case, it would be useful to discuss the facts of the case in CWJC No. 1647/97(R), which gave rise to LPA No. 97/98(R). The petitioners of CWJC No. 1647/97(R) had prayed in the writ application for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide employment to their dependants under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the female employees of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The petitioners case was that they were entitled to get the benefit of the scheme since they have completed 50 years of age and they have voluntarily retired. Their case was that their voluntary retirement could have been accepted by the respondents and employment should be provided to their dependants. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground, inter alia. that the scheme was no more operative and the respondent-Company was not duty bound to implement the scheme, as the voluntary retirement scheme was conditional one. A Bench of this Court dismissed the writ application on the ground that under the scheme petitioners cannot claim as a matter of fight that their voluntary retirement should be accepted and their wards should be employed. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the petitioners filed LPA No, 97/98(R). The letters patent appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was a member) and the same was dismissed on 29th June, 1999. The Division bench took notice of the defence taken by the Company in the counter-affidavit in which it was stated, inter alia, that under the scheme, the respondents had made it clear that they were not accepting the resignation of all the female employees and the voluntary retirement of only such employees will be accepted who came within the ambit of the said circular. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that under the circular, the scheme would not be applicable to essential member of the staff and the eligibility criteria has been laid down under the scheme. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that under the circular, the scheme would not be applicable to essential member of the staff and the eligibility criteria has been laid down under the scheme. Taking into consideration the denial of the respondent-Company and the facts stated in the counter affidavit, the Division Bench held that as a matter of right the petitioners cannot compel the respondent-Company to accept their voluntary retirement. 8. In the instant case it has not been disputed by the respondent-Company that the employee Md. Rasool was declared medically unfit on 4.6.78 and his voluntary retirement was approved on 28.8.80. The management rather made out a case that after accepting the voluntary retirement a letter of appointment was issued to his son Md. Suleman but he did not turn up for joining. 9. From the facts stated hereinabove, it is clear that the facts of the present case and the facts in the writ petition, which gave rise to LPA No. 97/98(R), are not at all same and similar. The reliance placed by Mr. Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner, on the decision in LPA No. 97/98(R) will not at all improve the case of the petitioner. It is well settled that in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision, it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved. 10. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the tribunal has gone into the facts of the case in details and recorded a conclusive finding that the employee. Mr. Rasool was forced to continue to work even after he was declared medically unfit. The tribunal, therefore, declared that the action of the management denying the appointment of his son Md. Suleman in place of his father is illegal and unjustified. I do not find any reasons to take a different view on the admitted facts of the case. The impugned award, therefore, needs no interference. 11. For the reason aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 12. Writ Petition dismissed.