JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved against the order dared 21st March, 2006, by which, the Appellant's W.P. (L) No. 6270 of 2005 was dismissed. The writ Petitioner-Appellant challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dhanbad in Reference No. 134 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal held that the termination of service of the Respondent (Miss Augustina Xess) w.e.f 25th February, 1993 cannot be justified and direction was issued to implement the award within three months from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India. The award says that the action of the management in terminating the service of the employee w.e.f. 25th February, 1993 is not justified. Consequently, she is entitled to be reinstated in her original job with 50 % back wages and other consequential relief from the date of her termination of the date of reinstatement. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently submitted that the Respondent obtained the employment by committing fraud and hence, she was not the eligible candidate under the relief Clause No. 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A-IV, which provides employment to the dependent who can be wife/husband, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son, younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter in law or son-in-law residing with the employee and wholly dependent on the earnings of the employee. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Respondent submitted an application stating therein that she being the sole surviving dependent upon the deceased-employee, suppressed the fact that in fact the original employee was married and had his son also. It is also submitted that when the wife of the deceased-employee submitted his complaint then matter was thoroughly enquired and thereafter the order for termination was passed. 4. We perused the reasons given in the impugned award dated 25th January, 2005. After recording evidence, the learned Tribunal held that employer failed to produce the relevant documents i.e the application submitted by the deceased-employee requesting therein for appointment of the Respondent-sister of the employee. It is also not in dispute that it was in the knowledge of the employee that Respondent was the sister of the deceased-employee, therefore, she did not suppress the fact. It appears that because of some personal reasons subsequently one complaint was submitted by wife of the deceased-employee. It is also not in dispute that it was in the knowledge of the employee that Respondent was the sister of the deceased-employee, therefore, she did not suppress the fact. It appears that because of some personal reasons subsequently one complaint was submitted by wife of the deceased-employee. Contention of the applicant-Respondent was that his brother himself submitted the application for giving compassionate appointment to Respondent for the reasons stated in the said applicaton and the application has been has not been produced by the Appellant, which fact was taken note by the Tribunal and it ws held that Respondent did not suppress any fact. 5. Be that as it may be, the facts have been well considered by the Tribunal in detail. We do not want to repeat the facts again. The same view was taken by the learned Single Judge and in our considered opinion it cannot be said that the Respondent obtained the employment by suppressing the fact or misleading the Appellant-employer. 6. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.