JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 26.11.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 21 of 1993 by reasons of which the learned Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner workman holding inter-alia that the management was justified in denying employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground due to death of her father. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely, Ram Gulam Nonia was permanent employee of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short to be referred as “BCCL”) and was posted at Putki Colliery as General Mazdoor. The father of the petitioner due to ailment died in harness on 15.09.1988 leaving behind his wife Chetni Bhuini, the petitioner and two sons namely, Bahadur Bhuini and Mahesh Bhuini. It is further submitted that the wife of the deceased employee (mother of the petitioner) was also an employee of BCCL working at Bhagaband Colliery, but she had taken voluntary retirement before the death of the deceased employee. The mother of the petitioner applied for employment declaring herself as the dependant of her deceased husband. However, she did not pursue the said application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.4.2 of National Coal Wages Agreement-IV (in short to be referred as “NCWA-IV”) within specified time, but the same was not considered on the ground that an application for compassionate appointment was already made by the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter raised industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the industrial adjudication, the mother of the petitioner was examined as W.W.1, whereas one S.K. Chatterjee, Clerk, working in the Personnel Department of Bhagaband Colliery was examined as M.W.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in not admitting the fact that the petitioner is the dependant daughter of the deceased employee and the dependant widow, son or daughter of the deceased employee are covered under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in not admitting the fact that the petitioner is the dependant daughter of the deceased employee and the dependant widow, son or daughter of the deceased employee are covered under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV for compassionate appointment. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider the important aspect that since the mother of the petitioner did not pursue her application for compassionate appointment, it was obvious that she relinquished her claim for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, since the mother of the petitioner had already taken the voluntary retirement before the death of her husband, it was thought appropriate that the petitioner being the dependant daughter of the deceased employee should get the compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in answering the reference against the petitioner without considering the object behind the compassionate appointment and, thus, the same deserves to be set-aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while relying on the counter-affidavit submits that it is an admitted fact that after the death of the father of the petitioner on 15.09.1988, her mother (wife of the deceased employee) namely, Chetni Bhuini applied for employment declaring herself as dependant of the deceased husband. During the adjudication before the learned Tribunal, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner that she was the dependant of the deceased employee. It is further submitted that as per Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV, if any person during his service period dies, in that case his widow, son or daughter is entitled to get employment, if at the time of death they are dependant to the deceased. However, according to the said clause, the claim of the widow is required to be considered first and if the widow declines her claim for employment, in that case, the claim of the dependant son or daughter is required to be considered. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the service excerpts of the deceased employee namely, Ram Gulam Nonia, only the name of his wife (the mother of the petitioner) namely, Smt. Chetni Bhuini has been mentioned in the column of family members. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the service excerpts of the deceased employee namely, Ram Gulam Nonia, only the name of his wife (the mother of the petitioner) namely, Smt. Chetni Bhuini has been mentioned in the column of family members. Since the petitioner failed to establish that she is the dependant of the deceased employee, the learned Tribunal has rightly answered the reference against the petitioner not finding her entitled for compassionate appointment under the provisions of Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner committed inordinate delay of 8 years in filing the present writ petition challenging the Award dated 26.01.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that Ram Gulam Nonia died in harness on 15.09.1988 and, thereafter, his wife Smt. Chetni Bhuini (mother of the petitioner) applied for compassionate appointment declaring her to be the dependant of the deceased employee. However, subsequently the petitioner also made an application for compassionate appointment as per Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV claiming herself to be the dependant daughter of the deceased employee. Since no action was taken by the respondents, an industrial dispute was raised which was registered as reference No. 21 of 1993 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. However, after adjudication, the reference was answered against the petitioner vide award dated 26.11.2001. On perusal of the Award, it appears that the learned Tribunal after examining the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties reached a conclusion that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of the fact that she is the dependant of the deceased employee. Moreover, the learned Tribunal also reached a conclusion that as per Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV, the claim of the widow is to be considered first and after the widow declines her claim for employment, in that case, the claim of the dependant son or daughter may be taken into consideration. However, mother of the petitioner who appeared as W.W.I did not disclose that she had relinquished her claim in favour of her daughter. However, mother of the petitioner who appeared as W.W.I did not disclose that she had relinquished her claim in favour of her daughter. The said finding of the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper as the first right of being appointed on compassionate ground is with the wife of the deceased, as per Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV. Since nothing was brought on record by the mother of the petitioner that she relinquished her claim for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner, she could not have been eligible for compassionate appointment. Moreover, as per the application form submitted by the petitioner in the year 1988, her age was 22 years. Considering the fact that she was 22 years at the time of filing of the application for compassionate appointment, at present she would be 51 years old. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years." 6. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years." 6. In the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve." 7. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case." 8. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case." 8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, I find that the learned Tribunal after thoroughly examining the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties reached a conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that she was the dependant of the deceased employee so as to entitle her for compassionate appointment in terms with Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV. 9. Considering the facts of the case as discussed hereinabove, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.