1. Smt. Dulali Jaswarin and Smt. Sukri Rajwarin were permanent employees of Katras-Choitudih Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL) situated within Katras Project Area and were working as Wagon Loader.

2. In the year 1985, the Management of M/s. BCCL adopted voluntary retirement scheme to its female employees, and issued a circular inviting applications with the terms and conditions for employment to their dependents in their place, who had not exceeded the age of 56 years on the date of application.

3. The aforesaid two female workers, under the provisions of aforesaid scheme expressed their willingness to retire voluntarily. The Management neither considered their application on 31.5.1985 nor took any decision in the matter and consequently both of them continued to work till they attained their age of superannuation, i.e, 60 years and after such continuous service both of them retired in the year 1991.

4. On behalf of those two female workers, after their retirement, at the instance of Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti, Central Government referred the following dispute, under Sections 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad:--whether the action of the management of Katras Project Area of M/s. BCCL in denying employment to the dependants of Smt. Dulali Jaswarin and Sukri Rajwarin is justified? If not to what relief these workmen and their dependants are entitled to?

5. In the said reference case No. 171 of 1993, the Tribunal gave award on 26.7.1999 directing the management to provide employment to their dependants. Challenging the said award, Management of Katras Project Area of M/s. BCCL, the employer filed CWJC No 593 of 2000 in this Court, which was allowed on 2.8.2001 by learned Single Judge and the award dated 26.7.1999 was quashed with observation that in case those two ladies have not received any part of their retirement benefits, then the same shall be paid to them by the management expeditiously."

6. The Mazdoor Sanghatan Samity has, therefore, filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against the said order dated 2.8.2001, which was admitted on the following question of law.

"Notwithstanding the disputed question of fact whether the two female work- persons had opted for voluntary retirement or not and that they might have been or might not have been themselves responsible for working uptill the normal superannuation age, despite their having submitted the application for Voluntary Retirement in 1985, does the mere fact that their actually having served till the normal age of superannuation disentitle these work-persons for claiming the compassionate appointments in favour of their male dependents ?"

7. There was no provision for appointment of any dependent of an employee; whether male or female on his/her retirement and only in the scheme of Voluntary Retirement for the female employees in BCCL, it was provided that a female employee may retire either in favour of her husband or son or son-in-law. In case of spouse, the age limit was 35 years or below; whereas in case of son and son-in-law, the age limit was 30 years or below. The candidate in whose favour a female employee applied for retirement was to be medically examined and only when he/she was found medically fit, retirement of the female employee was to be accepted, In the present case, the two female employees received full wages till the date of their respective superannuation and also received their entire retiral benefits. They were, therefore, not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid scheme after their retirement and their dependants could also not be considered for employment in their place.

8. The counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 20.7.1999, passed in LPA No. 53 of 1999(R) (Kaili Kamin v. The Coal India Limited and Ors.), which was also referred to by the Learned Single Judge in the i