ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondents-workman. 2. The impugned Award dated 23rd August, 2002 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 1 in Reference Case no. 118 of 1991 (Annexure3) is to the effect that the concerned lady, Smt. Chotani Bhuini, Excasual Wagon Loader has dependent son and the management was not justified in not providing employment to the dependent son of the lady in pursuance of bipartite settlement dated 20th May, 1981. The management was directed to provide employment to the dependent son of the concerned lady in terms of the said settlement within 30 days from the date of publication of Award. 3. The impugned Award answers the reference made by the Central Government vide notification dated 31st October, 1991 in the following terms: “Whether Smt. Chotani Bhuini, ExCasual Wagon Loader of Benedih has a dependent son and whether management of Benedih colliery in BlockII Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is justified in not providing employment to the dependent son of Smt. Chatni Bhuini in pursuance of bipartite settlement dated 20.5.81? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?” 4. Few pivotal issues arise on the legality and correctness of the impugned Award. Facts as are on record and undisputed by the parties reveal that Smt. Chotani Bhuini, Ex-Casual Wagon Loader of Benedih left her employment in the year 1974. There is a bipartite settlement dated 20th May, 1981 executed between Union and Personal Manager, namely, S.C.Gaur to the effect that her son would be given employment. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that under the terms and conditions of National Coal Wage Agreement in vogue at the relevant point of time, there was no provisions of giving employment to dependent of a living casual worker. There are no Standing Order also to that effect adduced before learned court. Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provides the manner in which settlement is to be arrived at in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1956. Rule 58 under Chapter-VIII mandate that enumerated categories of the officers of the Trade Union can execute the settlement on behalf of Union while on behalf of employer the settlement is to be signed by the employer himself, or his authorized agent, manger or other principal officer. Rule 58 under Chapter-VIII mandate that enumerated categories of the officers of the Trade Union can execute the settlement on behalf of Union while on behalf of employer the settlement is to be signed by the employer himself, or his authorized agent, manger or other principal officer. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form-H. Undisputedly, the settlement in question is not in Form-H. There is a serious doubt raised on behalf of the management as to the enforceability of such settlement executed by Personal Manager of Colliery, who according to them, was not authorized to do so. This settlement of 1981 is the basis for making the reference after 10 years on 31st October, 1991 to learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Learned Tribunal has overruled the objection of the Management on the validity and enforceability of the settlement by drawing an inference on the basis of assertion in the pleadings and evidences adduced that the General Manager was aware of the exercise of settlement undertaken by Personal Manager of the area. No direct evidence on that account had been produced before learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has also set aside the objection of the management as to the staleness of the dispute having been raised after 10 years of the purported settlement. It has also refused to accept that the settlement could not have remained in force after a period of 6 months as there was no notice to the Union as required under Section 19 of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted in defence of the impugned award that the settlement of 1981 was consciously arrived at between the Union and Personal Manager of area where the workman, Smt. Chotani Bhuini had been working as a casual workman till 1974 whereafter her name was struck off. There are no evidences however on record to the effect that the Management has taken any disciplinary action or struck off the name of casual workman from rolls. On the contrary, it is the case of the Management that the workman had stopped coming on her own since 1974. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that learned tribunal has rightly upheld the demand upon the consideration of the entire material evidence adduced before it. On the contrary, it is the case of the Management that the workman had stopped coming on her own since 1974. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that learned tribunal has rightly upheld the demand upon the consideration of the entire material evidence adduced before it. It is submitted that the direction is to provide employment to the eligible dependent son of the casual workman. Since the eldest son had crossed the age and that workman had more than one child, who was eligible, the management could have given effect to the award. Challenge to the award is therefore untenable in law and on facts. 6. On consideration of the pleadings, the impugned award and the submission of the counsel for the parties, it can be concluded that settlement of 20th May, 1981 was not executed in terms of the provisions of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. However, it is the sole basis for passing the impugned award in favour of the workman. There are no other Standing Order or provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement, which applies to state instrumentalities like the Management of BCCL, which have been evidenced or considered by learned Tribunal to issue such a direction. In effect, even if the validity of the settlement is assumingly accepted for the time being, it would be a departure from the consistent legally enforceable wage agreement and Standing Order between the Management and workman of the said coal company. When the execution of such settlement is itself in question as being unauthorized and not in terms of provisions of the Act and Rules, no legal right could have flown therefrom for being enforced by way of industrial adjudication . The learned Tribunal seems to have lost sight of this aspect of the matter while drawing its conclusion on mere inference about the legality and correctness of the settlement between the parties . 7. As has been submitted by learned counsel for the Management that there are four categories of workmen, namely, permanent, temporary, casual and badli worker, names of such workmen are entered into FormB Register. However, casual workmen are not entitled to gratuity for the period of their casual service. The case of employment to dependent of a casual worker, who is alive is not made out under any of those wage agreement or Standing Orders. 8. However, casual workmen are not entitled to gratuity for the period of their casual service. The case of employment to dependent of a casual worker, who is alive is not made out under any of those wage agreement or Standing Orders. 8. Learned counsel for the workman has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sumit Kumar Mahato Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 1031 of 2013] , whereunder a direction has been issued to consider the case of compassionate appointment to the dependent of casual employee of BCCL. However, the present case is not of employment on the basis of compassionate consideration to the dependent of an employee of petitioner-BCCL. Therefore, the said judgment does not come to the aid of respondent workmen. The impugned award therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly it is quashed. 9. The writ petition is consequently allowed. Petition allowed.