JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. One Francis Xavier Xess (since deceased) was originally working as General Mazdoor Category-l in the Central Workshop, Barkakana of M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL for short). He fell ill and requested for appointment of his sister, Miss Augustina Xess, so that she may look after him. On his request, the Workman Miss Augistina Xess was appointed in the year 1991. After some time, the charge was levelled by the Management against her that she obtained employment by committing fraud. 2. In the departmental proceeding, it was held that the Workman Miss Augistina Xess secured employment by committing fraud and for that she was removed from service w.e.f. 25 th February, 1993. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred upon them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication, vide order dated 22nd April, 1998. Whefher the action of the management of Kargali colliery. P.O. Bermo, Distt. Bokaro in terminating Miss. Augustina Xess from the services w.e.f. 25.2.93 is justified ? If not. to what relief is the workman entitled. ? 3. On hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence, the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad, came to a definite finding that the Workman had not obtained employment by committing fraud and answered the reference in favour of the Workman. She was reinstated in service with 50 % back wages, by impugned Award dated 25th January, 2005, passed in Reference No. 134 of 1993. 4. Learned counsel for the Management/petitioner submitted that the workman obtained employment declaring her to be only dependant of Late Francis Xavier Xess under clause 9.4.3 of NC.W.A.IV. Subsequently, one lady named Shashikala Shanta Xess, after about six months, brought to the notice of the Management that she is the married wife of Late Francis Xavier Xess and then only it came to the notice of the Management that the workman Miss Augistina Xess obtained employment by committing fraud. 5. Counsel for the Management/petitioner submitted that even a dependent unmarried sister cannot claim for appointment on compassionate ground as it is not permissible under clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A.IV. 6. In the present case, it is not required to be determined as to whether a dependent unmarried sister of an employee/deceased employee of M/S. C.C.L. is entitled for compassionate appointment or not. 7. 6. In the present case, it is not required to be determined as to whether a dependent unmarried sister of an employee/deceased employee of M/S. C.C.L. is entitled for compassionate appointment or not. 7. Admittedly, the workman Miss Augustina Xess was proceeded departmentally and only charged that was levelled against her related to obtaining employment by committing fraud. It was not the charge that she was appointed illegally, as there Page 1198 was no provision to appoint unmarried sister of deceased employee on compassionate ground. 8. Learned Presiding Officer has noticed the fact that after rendering service for 2 1/2 years, the Workman (Late Francis Xavier Xess) was seriously ill and as a result of which, his physical condition was seriously deteriorated. Thereafter, said Workman submitted an application from his death bed with a prayer for the employment of his sister, the concerned lady worker (Miss Augustina Xess), on humanitarian ground, as she was the only person looking after him by providing medical expenses and fooding. The Management, on the basis of such prayer made by his employee, provided employment to the lady worker (Miss Augustina Xess) and kept her on probation. Such statement of Francis Xavier Xess was corroborated by the lady worker (Miss Augustina Xess) during her evidence as W.W.I. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, learned Presiding Officer, came to a definite finding that the lady worker had not played any fraud for getting employment, but the Management had given her employment on the application of his employee with open eye. 10. In view of specific finding of fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award dated 25 th January, 2005, passed in Reference No. 134 of 1993. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.