Order The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the award dated 6.2.2003 passed by Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad. 2. In the instant case a Reference was made on 10.9.98 by the Central Government for adjudication and the same is set out as under:- "Whether the action of the Management of Barora Coal Washery of M/s BCCL to not to give the employment under the V.R.S.(F) to the dependant son of Smt. Sugiya Kamin is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the dependent of the workman is entitled?" 3. The Tribunal vide its impugned Award dated 6.2.2003 directed as under:- "The action of the Management of Barora Coal Washery of M/s BCCL in not giving the employment under V.R.S.(F) to the dependant of the concerned workman, Sugiya Kamin is unjustified and she deserves relief as prayed for. Consequently, the management is hereby directed to provide employment to the dependant son of the concerned workman, namely, Ram Janam Nonia, subject to being found medically fit for the job, within sixty days from the date of publication of the award." 4. In the instant case the admitted fact is set out in brief as under:- The concerned workman discharged her duties till the age of superannuation i.e. 16.4.2001 as per the date of birth recorded in the Statutory Form-B register and was fully' paid till the date of retirement. The second fact remains that the claim for voluntary retirement even other wise as per the scheme dated 12.4.1995 and subsequently modified vide letter dated 5.9.1995 was applicable in case of a female workman if she had not crossed the age of 50 and admittedly the petitioner was 54 years of age in the year 1995. 5. I have considered the admitted facts and the arguments and I find that the learned Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, has completely misdirected itself and the award is the product of total non-application of mind without even understanding the correct fact. 6. The fact remains that the dependant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as a right by way of descent or any hereditary right. 7. 6. The fact remains that the dependant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as a right by way of descent or any hereditary right. 7. The second issue in question which has been completely overlooked is the fact that Smt. Sugiya Kamin, the workman had completed full service till her age of superannuation i.e. 16.4.2001 and thereafter the claim of voluntary retirement as claimed in 1995 and further claim for compassionate appointment under V.R.S.(F) does not stand to reason. It will automatically mean that the application and or claim under V.R.S.(F) was given up more so when she continued in service for good six years thereafter uptill the age of superannuation in 2001. 8. The Award dated 6.2.2003 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, is on the face of it perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the Award dated 6.2.2003 rendered by Industrial Tribunal No.1. Dhanbad, is hereby quashed.