ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 40 of 2013 whereby learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that action of the employer in refusing the appointment on compassionate ground is unjustified and further has directed to provide employment to the dependent of the deceased employee. 3. From the pleadings, it appears that Dhanwa Kamin (mother of the claimant), who was in regular employment of M/s BCCL, had died in harness on 06.04.1992. It further appears that there was an agreement between the parties dated 10.04.1992 for providing employment to one dependant of the deceased after he/she attains majority. Subsequently, the claimant had been sent for medical examination before the Medical Board on 21.11.1998, but in spite of the above fact, no employment has been provided to the claimant. 4. Being aggrieved, the claimant had filed writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 5267 of 2007, which was dismissed on 01.07.2008. Relevant para of the said judgment is as follows: “In the circumstances, the respondents cannot be directed to consider the petitioner’s case of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 5. In spite of above order of dismissal passed in the said writ petition, an Industrial Dispute has been raised for which reference has made being Reference case no. 40 of 2013 on 12.09.2013. Terms of reference is as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Madhuban Colliery under Barora Area of M/s BCCL in denying employment to shri Dharambir Beldar son of Late Dhanwa Kamin in violation of agreement dt. 10.04.1992 is fair and justified? To what relief the dependant son of deceased workman is entitled?” 6. Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the reference in favour of the claimant. Para-15 of the Award dated 21.07.2016 is quoted here-in-below: “15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Madhuban Colliery under Barora Area of M/S BCCL in denying employment to shri Dharambir Beldar son of Late Dhanwa Kamin in violation of agreement dt. 10.04.1992 is not fair and justified. Hence he is entitled to get employment within 30 days from the publication of the award.” 7. 10.04.1992 is not fair and justified. Hence he is entitled to get employment within 30 days from the publication of the award.” 7. From perusal of the Award, it is evident that learned Tribunal has held that Rule of res judicata will not bar a fresh litigation and the workman is entitled to get employment as per MOS (Memorandum of Settlement). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments rendered in the case of Executive Engineer, ZP Engineering Division Vrs. Digambara Rao and Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 262 and in the case of Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Vrs. P. Kulothangan & Anr., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 68 . 9. On the strength of the above judgments, it has been argued that once the issue has been settled by the higher forum, learned Labour Court cannot reopen the same and principle of res judicata will apply. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, reference is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 . 12. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is an admitted position that the claimant had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 5267 of 2007 for direction upon the respondents to consider and grant compassionate appointment. After considering the entire factual aspect by the High Court, it had been ordered that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as death has occurred in the year 1992 while the writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. 15. It is trite that delay defeats compassion. Compassionate appointment is given for immediate relief to the bereaved family. In the present case the death has occurred in the year 1992, but the writ petition has been filed in the year 2007 and reference has been made in the year 2013. 16. In view of the above fact, Award dated 21.07.2016 passed in Ref. No. 40 of 2013 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed. 16. In view of the above fact, Award dated 21.07.2016 passed in Ref. No. 40 of 2013 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.