JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J.-In this writ application the Management of the B.C.C.L. has challenged the award dated 18th June, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad in Ref. Case no. 9 of 1987 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has held that refusal to absorb the dependant of Smt. Lukhu Mahatain, Shale Picker to provide. with a job of casual nature, as Lukhu Mahatain was declared medically unfit to be unjust, and therefore, direction was given that the dependant, Lukhu Mahatain would apply with such prayer to the Management through the sponsoring union within one month from the passing of the Award and the management will absorb him as casual worker. 2. From perusal of the award under challenge, it appears that the learned Tribunal after considering the materials on record has held that Lukhu Mahatain worked till 1980 and she was in service till then. Second findings of fact of the learned Tribunal is that the concerned workman was a casual worker but she was performing the permanent nature of job. 3. Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel- for the petitioner has challenged the award of the tribunal on two grounds namely that since the concerned workman was a casual worker and therefore, question of providing compassionate appointment, pursuant to Clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A.-III does not arise. He submits that under clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A. III, the provision is for providing compassionate appointment is to the dependant of a permanent worker and not of a casual worker. In support of his submission he has relied on the decision in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Rani Devi and another reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 2445 . He next submitted that since the concerned workman has left the job in the year 1976 itself and, therefore, the question of providing compassionate appointment to the dependant of Lukhu Mahatain cannot arise at the belated stage. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 referring Clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A. III has submitted that the language used in the said provision does not differentiate between a permanent worker or a casual worker. He further submits that the point of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was never raised at any stage and therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise at this stage. 5. He further submits that the point of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was never raised at any stage and therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise at this stage. 5. From perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Rani Devi (supra), it appears that it has clearly held that if the Scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual, ad hoc employees including those who are working as Apprentice, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. It need not be pointed out that appointment on compassionate grounds, are made as a matter of course, without even requiring the person concerned to face any Selection Committee. 6. Since it is the admitted case of the parties that the concerned workman was a casual worker and therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court (supra), the dependant of the concerned workman is not entitled the appointment on compassionate ground. In my opinion the Tribunal has committed error in directing the Management to provide the appointment to the dependant of Lukhi Mahatain who was a casual worker. 7. In the result this application is allowed. The award dated 18th June, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (no. 2), Dhanbad in Ref. Case no. 9 of 1987 is hereby quashed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.