( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the Award dated 6. 4. 96 passed by Sli. Dhar-iim Paul Arora, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. Ill, Delhi whereby the In- dustrial Tribunal has directed the MCD to appoint Sh. Bhori Lal, respondent No. I to the post ofbaildar on compassionale ground.

( 2 ) ONE Sh. Chunna Ram was working with MCD as Baildar in the Engineering Department at Karol Bagh Zone as regular employee. He died on 9. 2. 87 while in the employment. After his death, his son Sh. Bhori Lal, respondent No. I herein, moved an application with the petitioner seeking appointmenl on compassionale grounds. The application was rejected by MCD. Accordingly, respondent No. I raised In- dustrial Dispute, which was REFERRED TO to Tribunal for adjudication as per Notification No. P26 (1573)/89-Lab. /13021-26 dated 5. 5. 89. The terms of reference is as under:-

"whether Sh. Bhori Lal is entitled to be appointed as Baildar in place of his deceased father Late Sh. Chunna Ram on compassionale ground and, if so, what direction - are necessary in this respect?"

( 3 ) ON reference of the aforesaid dispute to the Industrial Tribunal the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the same and gave impugned award dated 6. 4. 96.

( 4 ) A perusal of the Award shows that the case of Bhori Lal was that his father died on 9. 2. 97 leaving behind his family in harness; there being no earning member and, therefore, he had made a request in writing by an application to the management for being considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds. He had complied with the requirements. He had produced School Leaving Certificate as per which his date of birth is 30. 5. 54 but his request was wrongly rejected. On the other hand the case of the MCD was that deceased Chunna Ram had five sons and one daughter and out of this Sh. Bhori Lal was the eldest son who was gainfully employed. Other sons except fifth one who was minor was gainfully employed. It was also the case of the MCD that Sh. Bhori Lal was not residing with Sh. Chunna Ram during his life time and his name was made to be entered into the Ration Card after the death of Sh. Chunna Ram and, therefore, according to MCD he was not a member of the family of Chunna Ram. After discussing the evidence on the lines of stand taken above, the Tribunal in Para-14 of the Award observed as under:

THE fact of Municipal Corporation of Delhi also considering the appointment of son or daughter or Municipal servant as per Government of India instructions adopted by the Corporation vide Resolution No. 1282 dated 31. 3. 80 and subsequent amendments in the instructions from time to time are being followed, considered and made. As per these instructions appointment are rather being made to be considered to be given to wife or son or daughter of the employee who died in harness including death by suicide in the event of there being no other earning members of the family. The very purpose of such appointment has been to provide an assistance to the family of deceased employee. It is admitted fact that the wife of Sh. Chunna Ram employee of the management died during the very right time of Sh. Bhori Lal himself. From the matter on record, it is admitted rather there is no dispute of Sh. Bhori Lal the applicant to be an eldest son of deceased employee Sh. Chunna Ram. As per statement of Sh. Ram Avtar Verma the claim of Sh. Bhori Lal was disallowed on the ground of his two sons member of the family of deceased employee Sh. Chunna Ram. There is no paper on record either to show or say so that the reasons having arrived at in not considering the applicant Sh. Bhori Lal application for the appointment on compassionate ground to have communicated to the applicant so far. In the absence of any reason to have been communicated to the applicant/claimant relating to results of his application for compassionate appointment. I find that the Act of the management for not considering his application on compassionate gr