ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Despite twice service of notice, even after admission of the appeal, respondent has not entered appearance. The appellant is the Management of Bhagaband Colliery, who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18th February, 2009 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4961 of 2002, 2009 (2) JLJR 437 whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the award dated 28th June, 2001 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad in Reference No. 19 of 1993 and been pleased to further modify the award by directing the Management to implement it and pay arrears of salary w.e.f. 28th June, 2001 till June, 2005 for a period of four years as the respondent-beneficiary of the award Smt. Mundri Devi would have retired in 2005. The learned Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate the reference made by order dated 17th March, 1993 by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the following terms:- "Whether 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 justified in accordance with the clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV? If not, to what relief is Smt. Mundri Devi is entitled to?" 3. Smt. Mundri Devi claiming herself to be the wife of late Rameshwar Hazam i.e. the employee, who died on 25th January, 1991 in harness had sought compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV. The management contested the case and categorically stated that one Bideshi Hazam claiming himself to be the son of the deceased-employee had stated on affidavit that his mother had died before the death of his father and he was the dependent of the late employee. The lady Mundri Devi also had filed an application claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee and prayed for compassionate appointment. She also had sworn an affidavit in her support. A dispute arose between Bideshi Hazam and Mundri Devi relating to the relationship between the late employee and the concerned lady. Mundri Devi in her affidavit admitted that Bideshi Hazam was the son of late Rameshwar Hazam but Bideshi Hazam had disputed the status of Mundri Devi as the wife of the deceased-employee. A dispute arose between Bideshi Hazam and Mundri Devi relating to the relationship between the late employee and the concerned lady. Mundri Devi in her affidavit admitted that Bideshi Hazam was the son of late Rameshwar Hazam but Bideshi Hazam had disputed the status of Mundri Devi as the wife of the deceased-employee. According to his affidavit, the employee had not married twice after the death of his first wife. In his affidavit, he has also disclosed the name of other family members of Rameshwar Hazam. Learned Tribunal considered the plea of the parties and found that the description of family members in the affidavit had similarity with the description of family members given by Bideshi Hazam in his affidavit. Considering the document marked as Exts.-M-3 and W-3, it went on to hold that Mundri Devi was the wife of Rameshwar Hazam. Accordingly, being the dependent of her husband she was legally entitled to submit application for her employment under clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA-IV. Under provisions of NCWA-IV Clause 9.4.2, employment of a dependent would be considered if he is physically fit and suitable for appointment and not more than 35 years provided that the age limit shall not apply in the case of spouse. The learned Tribunal found from the evidence of Mundri Devi that she was 50 years old as on the date of her statement recorded i.e. 21st November, 1995. Learned Tribunal answered the reference in the following terms:- "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 being aggrieved preferred the writ petition which has been decided against it by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submits by referring to the statements of the material witnesses namely WW-1, R.K. Prasad that W-3 is a self-sworn affidavit of Mundri Devi stating Rameshwar Hazam as her husband while M-3 is the photocopy of the application of Mundri Devi in two pages exhibited by the management witness no. 1. These two documents are affidavit and application of the lady Mundri Devi herself. 1. These two documents are affidavit and application of the lady Mundri Devi herself. In the wake of serious dispute about the status of Mundri Devi as a wife of the, deceased-employee whose first wife had admittedly died before his death on 25th January, 1991, the learned Tribunal was in serious error in recording such a finding of fact. The entire reference has been answered by the learned Tribunal on the basis of these two documents itself which is a perverse finding in the eye of law. Mundri Devi could not establish by any other cogent evidence that she was recorded as the wife of the deceased-employee in any of his service records, though she has admitted that Bideshi Hazam was the son of the late employee and engaged as a truck driver. Therefore, the award deserved to be set aside by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has also fallen in error while upholding the award which suffers from such serious perversity in the findings of the fact. 6. Employment under the management of Bhagaband Colliery which is a instrumentality of the State can only be granted on compassionate grounds, if the ingredients under the scheme of compassionate appointment i.e. Chapter-IX under the Social Security Scheme of NCWA is fulfilled by the dependent of the deceased-employee. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge also deserves to be set aside in appeal. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant and the relevant materials on record and also gone through the impugned judgment and the award of the learned Tribunal. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in relation to the findings of the learned Tribunal relating to the status of Mundri Devi as the wife of Rameshwar Hazam, deceased-employee. Since the very status of the lady Mundri Devi as wife of deceased-employee was in serious dispute, the learned Tribunal ought not to have rendered its findings on two documents being Exhibits-M-3 and W-3 both of which were the affidavit and application of the same lady. No other material evidence has been produced by the lady Mundri Devi or considered by the learned Tribunal to come to such finding of fact. The finding, therefore suffers from perversity and cannot be the basis for answering the reference in favour of the claimant Mundri Devi. No other material evidence has been produced by the lady Mundri Devi or considered by the learned Tribunal to come to such finding of fact. The finding, therefore suffers from perversity and cannot be the basis for answering the reference in favour of the claimant Mundri Devi. It appears that these serious errors in the findings of the fact by the learned Tribunal has escaped attention of the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the writ petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion made and for the reasons discussed, we are therefore unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award dated 28th June, 2001 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad in Reference No. 19 of 1993. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award and the order dated 18th February, 2009 passed in the writ petition are set aside. 10. The appeal stands allowed.