ORDER 1. Heard the parties. Shivraj Prasad, father of Om Prakash was employed as driver in Bokaro Steel Plant. His elder son, K.K. Khuswaha was also employed as driver in the plant. Shivraj Prasad died in harness. His widow applied for appointment of her second son, namely, Om Prakash, on compassionate, ground, concealing the fact that her elder son K.K. Khuswaha was already employed as driver from before. Request of widow of deceased driver was considered compassionately and Om Prakash was appointed as Junior Yard Porter, on casual basis in December, 1988. He served the plant from 22.12.1988 to 4.11.1989. It is stated that on oral order dated 5.11.1989 of the Officer of the plant, without giving opportunity to him, his service was terminated for the reason that his elder brother was already employed in the plant. 2. At the instance of Om Prakash the Appropriate Government, on 22.2.1994, made reference of the following dispute raised by him, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. "Whether the termination of services of Shri Om Prakash, son of late Shivraj Prasad, Junior Yard Porter. Traffic Department with effect from 5.11.1989 is proper? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?" 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, respondent No. 1 in Reference Case No. 30 of 1994, gave the impugned award dated 27.1.1999 (Annexure 3), holding termination of the workman concerned by the management to be bad, illegal and not according to law, rules, circular and policy decision of the company and directed the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages. 4. Challenging the said award M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. filed CWJC No. 2948 of 1999 (R) in this Court, which was dismissed in-limine on 30.3.2001. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the award on the ground that it was based on findings of fact. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the management. 5. It is not in dispute that elder brother of Om Prakash (the respondent No. 2) was employed as driver in the Bokaro Steel Plant in regular course during the life time of his father, Shivraj Prasad. There was nothing brought on record to suggest that his employed elder brother was not supporting his family. 6. 5. It is not in dispute that elder brother of Om Prakash (the respondent No. 2) was employed as driver in the Bokaro Steel Plant in regular course during the life time of his father, Shivraj Prasad. There was nothing brought on record to suggest that his employed elder brother was not supporting his family. 6. Maha Devi, widow of the deceased workman, Shivraj Prasad in her application (Exhibit W-2) concealed the fact that her elder son was employed as driver in CEZ department of the Bokaro Steel Plant and Om Prakash also, while filling up the interview particulars from (Exhibit M-4) at Column No. 14 suppressed the said vital information from the Company with ulterior motive. 7. However, the tribunal observed that the workmans elder brother K.K. Kushwaha got employment by dint of his own competitive merit much prior to the death of his father and not on compassionate ground. The major married son employed in service before the death of his father does not come under the definition of the family of the deceased. It was further observed "In my view there is no circular/policy decision either of Bokaro Steel Plant or of SAIL to the effect that in cases of deceased employees son already employed in Bokaro Steel Plant no compassionate employment to his other son in the event of his death while in service". 8. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of Apex Court dated 2.11.2000 in SAIL and Anr. v. Awadhesh Singh and Ors., vide Civil Appeal No. 6455-6459 of 1998 [reported in 2001 (2) JCR 336 (SC)] and its analogous appeals wherein the memorandum of agreement between the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short SAIL) and the National Joint Committee for the steel industry for compassionate appointment evolved by the SAIL was the subject matter of consideration and the question was whether appointment on the death of an employee to one of his dependents could have been made on compassionate ground if some other dependent of the said deceased employee was already in service. The Apex Court observed as under: "The Memorandum of Agreement for appointment on compassionate ground had been evolved by the employer so that on the sudden death of an employee his dependents would not be on the roads as destitutes and can maintain themselves if an appointment is given to any one of the dependents of the deceased. Such a scheme cannot at all be conceived if some other dependent of the deceased is already in service. The very purpose for which such scheme had been evolved would get frustrated if a claim on priority basis is made by a dependent of the deceased notwithstanding the fact that other dependent of the deceased is already in service." In S. Mohan v. Government of T.N. and Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 485 the Apex Court held as under : "The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadearner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the present case, at the time of her death, the mother was not the sole breadearner of the family. Two brothers of the appellant were already employed and his father was receiving a small pension. The appellant, who was then around 12 or 13 years of age, sought employment on compassionate grounds after a lapse of 10 years. It was, therefore, obvious that there was no immediate financial crisis in the family which would warrant any out of turn appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds." 9. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. Mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. In such cases the relevant consideration is whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employees death. 10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court in the present case, we have no option but to set aside the impugned award dated 27.1.1999 as well as the order dated 30.3.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2948 of 1999 (R). 11. 10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court in the present case, we have no option but to set aside the impugned award dated 27.1.1999 as well as the order dated 30.3.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2948 of 1999 (R). 11. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order dated 16/17 10.1989 (Exhibit M-8) is confirmed, but without costs.