Order The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the award dated 28.6.2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad in Ref. No. 19/1993 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has been pleased to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the petitioner-management to provide employment to Smt. Mundri Devi. 2. It appears that there was a reference made in the year 1993 which is quoted as under:- "Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCl is denying the employment to Smt. Mundri Devi, widow of late Rameshwar Hazam is justified in accordance with the clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A.-IV? If not, to what relief is Smt. Mundri Devi is entitled to?" 3. Finally, vide a well considered award passed vide impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer directed as under:- "The action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCl in denying the employment to Smt. Mundri Devi, widow of late Rameshwar Hazam is not justified in accordance with the Clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A.-IV. consequently, Smt. Mundri Devi is entitled for employment under the management." 4. The management was directed to implement the award within a period of three months. The dispute related to the issue as to whether Smt. Mundri Devi, widow of late Rameshwar Hazam, was the wife of the deceased employee or not. All the relevant evidences were adduced and considered before the learned Presiding Officer and it was specifically recorded after giving a finding that she was the wife of the deceased employee and as per sub-clause (2) of Clause 9.4.2 of N.C.W.A.-IV, there was no restriction of age and thus, she was entitled to get employment on compassionate ground. 5. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid award. 6. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the age at the relevant time as disclosed was 50 years in the year 1995 and thus, when the award was passed, she must be of 56 years, of age. According to the counsel for the petitioner she must have reached the age of superannuation and in that case, she is not entitled to employment. 7. I have considered the arguments as well as the pleadings of the parties. According to the counsel for the petitioner she must have reached the age of superannuation and in that case, she is not entitled to employment. 7. I have considered the arguments as well as the pleadings of the parties. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the reference was made in the year 1993 and the award, in any case was passed in the year 2001 with specific direction to implement it within a period of three months and in the writ petition preferred against it by the management no interim protection or stay was given by this Court and in spite of that the same has not been implemented till date. The argument with regard to I the respondent No.2 having attained the age of superannuation as on today will not hold good for the sole reason that the reference was made in the year 1993 and the award was passed in the year 2001 with specific direction to implement it within three months from the date of the award. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to direct the Management to implement the award and pay the arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.6.2001 till June, 2005 i.e. a period of four years as applicable in accordance with law. The aforesaid direction is based on the statement by the learned counsel, namely, Anoop Kumar Mehta, that the respondent no. 2 in any case would have retired in 2005. The petitioner-Management is accordingly directed to make the payment of salary for the aforesaid period within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid modification.