JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree of reversal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit praying decree for declaration that the defendant No. 1 who is the second son-in-law is entitled to get service as his dependent. The petitioners case is that he was an employee in the Digwadih Colliery in TISCO and had put in 28 years of service. He took voluntary retirement in the year 1976. The plaintiff has only two daughters and has no son. The elder son-in-law, Subodh Kumbhkar, is an employee of B.C.C.L. and second daughter is married to Hiru Kumbhkar. The second son-in-law Hiru Kumbhkar is unemployed. In the service rule one dependent of a person, who takes voluntary retirement, is entitled for employment in the Company. When the plaintiff took voluntary retirement in 1976, his two daughters were minor and he had no other dependent. In the year 1988 the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested them to provide employment to his eldest son-in-law Subodh Kumbhkar in place of the plaintiff, but he was informed that one Kriti Kumbhkar, defendant No. 4 has already secured a job at Digwadih Colliery as far back as on 22.01.1977 in place of the plaintiff claiming himself as his adopted son and dependent. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the defendant No. 3, denying any such relationship. Thereafter the said Kirti Kumbhkar was dismissed from service. The said Kirti Kumbhkar filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 against the order of his dismissal wherein he had prayed for declaration that he was adopted son of the plaintiff and his dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction. During the pendency of the said Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 the General Manager allegedly assured him to consider his grievance and the said Kirti Kumbhkar withdrew the suit on 05.12.1994. Though defendant No. 4 was given fresh employment, but the plaintiffs son-in-law was not given any employment. Hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by TISCO denying the statement made in the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff, while in service, had himself requested the management for providing employment to said Kirti Kumbhkar claiming him as adopted son and on his said request, employment was given to the said adopted son. Hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by TISCO denying the statement made in the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff, while in service, had himself requested the management for providing employment to said Kirti Kumbhkar claiming him as adopted son and on his said request, employment was given to the said adopted son. However, on the subsequent complaint, action was taken and the said Kirti Kumbhkar was terminated from service. Thereafter said Kirti Kumbhkar had unconditionally withdraw the said suit and a fresh employment was given to him. It has been stated that the employment was given to Kirti Kumbhkar as he was sponsored by the plaintiff himself as his adopted son and after about a lapse of 12 years of his retirement, he has made a frivolous claim for the service of his son-in-law which is not tenable under the service terms and as such the said Hiru Kumbhkar is not entitled for getting employment. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. While deciding Issues No. 5 and 6, learned Trial Court held that when the defendant No. 4 was reemployed after the withdrawal of Title Suit No. 1 of 1991, it was a fresh employment and that the effect of withdrawal of the suit should be to the benefit of the plaintiff, who had objected to the employment of the said proforma defendant Kirti Kumbhkar. On that reasoning, learned Trial Court decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit declaring that his second son-in-law Hiru Kumbhkar is entitled to get employment in the respondent-Company. The said defendant No. 1-TISCO filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was registered as Title Appeal No. 44 of 2000. The said appeal was finally heard by learned Additional District Judge VIII, Dhanbad. In view of the ground taken in the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and material on record and after due appraisal and consideration thereof came to the finding that at the time of the plaintiffs retirement in the year 1976, Hiru Kumbhkar was not his son-in-law and who could have given job in place of the plaintiff. In view of the provisions of the service rules, said Hiru Kumbhkar was not the dependent of the plaintiff at the relevant time and the relief prays for by him cannot be granted to the plaintiff. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, found the findings of the Trial Court erroneous and perverse and set aside the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court and dismissed the suit. 5. Mr. S.N. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the reasons recorded by learned Trial Court was well founded and sound and he had rightly held that since the so-called adopted son was dismissed on the complain made by the plaintiff his second son-in-law is entitled for the employment as his dependent. Learned Counsel submitted that the re-employment of the so-called adopted son was not as a dependent of the plaintiff, but it was a fresh employment by the management in accordance with the terms of understanding for withdrawal of the suit filed against the company and as such learned Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in setting aside the said judgment and decree and dismissing the suit. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully perusing the records, I find that learned Trial Court had acted on assumption that since the so-called adopted son was once dismissed and got fresh employment after the withdrawal of the Title Suit No. 1 of 1991, his employment was no longer as a dependent of the plaintiff and his son-in-law should have been employed instead. The said finding of learned Trial Court was not based on consideration of the provisions of the rules of the Company and the relevant materials available on record. Learned Lower Appellate Court has dealt with the same and has duly discussed and considered the relevant aspects appearing on record and has come to the finding that the plaintiffs son-in-law cannot be held to be dependent, who had even no existence in the plaintiffs family at the time of his retirement in the year 1976, i.e. at the time relevant for exercising the option for the dependent under the provisions of the Rules of the Company. Learned Counsel failed to point out that the finding is contrary to the provisions of the rules or there is any misinterpretation of the relevant rules of the Company. Learned Counsel failed to point out that the finding is contrary to the provisions of the rules or there is any misinterpretation of the relevant rules of the Company. The dismissal of Kirti Kumbhkar - so-called adopted son, on the complain of the plaintiff, ipso facto, does not create any right to employment of the plaintiffs son-in-law, if he is not entitled according to the rules of the company, as rightly held by the lower appellate Court. I find no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of learned lower appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.