JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr.Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent B.C.C.L. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuant to the award dated 25.5.1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 15 of 1991 and the judgment dated 11.9.1996 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2343 of 1995 (R) and the judgment dated 11.6.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Review No. 94 of 2000 (R). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was suffering from some ailments for that he requested him to refer before the Apex Medical Board as per Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA III. But the respondent management did not pay any heed to his request. Accordingly, a dispute was raised before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Tribunal vide award dated 25.05.1995, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, directed the management to consider the case of the petitioner under NCWA. The management challenged the award dated 25.5.1995 before this Court in CWJC N0. 2343 of 1995(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 11.9.1996, a copy of which is annexed Anenxure-2 to the writ petition, modifying the said Award to the extent that if any vacancy exists, the management of the petitioner either presently or in near future, a dependant of Late B.N. Mitra should be considered according to his qualification for appointment on compassionate ground. When the case of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner again filed writ petition in CWJC No. 1346 of 1998 (R) for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for employment which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.1999, a copy of which annexed at Annexure-3 to this writ petition. When the case of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner again filed writ petition in CWJC No. 1346 of 1998 (R) for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for employment which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.1999, a copy of which annexed at Annexure-3 to this writ petition. The petitioner filed review petition against the order dated 29.11.1999 passed in CWJC No. 1463 of 1998 (R) and after hearing the parties the review petition being Civil Review No. 94 of 2000 (R) was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2001, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the Award passed by the Tribunal and the direction given by this Court in CWJC No. 2343 of 1995 (R). But the respondents has not considered the case of the petitioner and does not communicate anything in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the orders of the Tribunal as well as of this Court, the management has taken the plea that there are no vacancy that is why the case of the petitioner was not considered whereas the petitioner has brought on record Annexure-6 series which shows that some persons have been considered on the compassionate ground under the NCWA and in view of the Anneure-6 series, the case of the petitioner must be considered. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no vacancy and that is why the case of the petitioner was not considered. He further submits that it is not in dispute that there is provision under NCWA IV for the appointment on the compassionate ground. 5. In view of the cumulative effect of these facts, this Court directs the respondents BCCL to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground under the provision of NCWA IV taking into observations made herein above. It transpires from Annexure-6 series that other persons have been appointed under NCWA III on compassionate ground. The management shall pass a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.