JUDGMENT By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure-3) rendered by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 128/1999, whereby learned Tribunal has answered the said reference in favour of the respondent No.2-concened workman. 2. The short fact of the case is that Jagat Bahadur was a permanent employee of M/S B.C.C.L posted as Night Guard at Godhar Colliery. In 1991, he was declared medically unfit and was stopped from duty w.e.f 17.9.1991. According to the provisions contained in Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement -V (NCWAV), which provides for compassionate appointment to a dependant of such employee, Chandrakala Devi (respondent No.2), the only living wife of Jagat Bahadur, applied for her compassionate appointment in place of Jagat Bahadur on 26.9.1991. The Management kept the said application pending for several years. Chandrakala Devi, thereafter, raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to learned Tribunal and has been answered by the impugned award. 3. It is relevant to mention here that Jagat Bahadur appeared before the Management and requested for giving employment to Chandrakala Devi stating that she is her only alive wife. The said fact has also been admitted by the Management in its written statement filed before learned Tribunal. 4. The Management contested the said reference on the ground that the name of Chandrakala Devi is not mentioned in the list of the dependants in the service excerpts of Jagat Bahadur, which was prepared in the year 1987. She is a stranger and is not entitled to get employment under the provision of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V. 5. Both the parties adduced evidences in the said reference case. 6. After thorough discussion and consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record, learned Tribunal held that the action of the Management in not providing employment to the only alive second wife Chandrakala Devi in place of Jagat Bahadur, Ex-Night Guard of Godhar Colliery under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V, is not justified and she is entitled for employment under the Management. 7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Management, submitted that though the said award is challenged in this writ petition, the Management, subsequently, took decision to implement the said award. 7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Management, submitted that though the said award is challenged in this writ petition, the Management, subsequently, took decision to implement the said award. However, when Chandrakala Devi was sent to the Medical Board for that purpose on 15.12.2009, she was found aged about 47 years and six months. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the said medical report, she is overaged for that purpose and is not entitled to get employment. She may be given monetary compensation. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 -concerned workman, replying to the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that valuable right of the concerned workman to get compassionate appointment, cannot be taken away due to negligence and laches on the part of the Management. Admittedly, when the concerned workman had applied for compassionate appointment on 26.9.1991, she was aged below 30 years and was eligible for getting employment. Her application was kept pending for several years by the Management. Thereafter, the concerned workman raised a dispute and ultimately the said dispute was decided in Reference Case No. 128/1999 by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad holding that the concerned workman is entitled to get employment and that the action of the Management in not providing employment, is wholly unjustified. 9. Learned counsel submitted that in a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been clearly held that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground of being over age on the date of consideration, whereas the concerned workman was well within the prescribed age on the date of making the application and is entitled to get employment. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the decisions of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad & Ors. [ 2005(3) JLJR 275 ] and Sri Kheman Mahato Vs. M/S B.C.C.L, Dhanbad & Ors. [ 2007(2) JLJR 344 ]. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that when the Management decided to implement the award, the Medical Board had no jurisdiction to put any objection on the ground of being over aged. Such objection is redundant in view of the terms of the award and the decision of the Management. Since the concerned workman is entitled to get compassionate appointment, there is no question of giving any monetary compensation. Such objection is redundant in view of the terms of the award and the decision of the Management. Since the concerned workman is entitled to get compassionate appointment, there is no question of giving any monetary compensation. Once the Management has taken decision to implement the award, they cannot back out from the said decision on frivolous grounds. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 12. On perusal of the impugned award, I find that it is a thoroughly discussed and well reasoned award. Learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman (Chandrakala Devi) and has held that the action of the Management in not providing employment to Chandrakala Devi in place of Jagat Bahadur, Ex-Night Guard, is unjustified. 13. Since the Management has already taken decision to implement the impugned award, it is futile to go into the merit of the objections raised against the impugned award in this writ petition. 14. Once the decision has already been taken by the Management to implement the impugned award, there is no question of deviation therefrom on an observation of the Medical Board, which is constituted only for medical examination. The recommendation of the Medical Board has nothing to do with the decision of the Management. Particularly, in the matter of implementation of an award the same cannot be taken as an impediment, as has been said by the Management. 15. Even otherwise, the relief which has been granted in the impugned award cannot be denied by the Management on the ground of being over-aged on the date of medical examination. The date of medical examination has no relevance in the context. The limitation is for the purpose of making claim i.e. for filing an application and not for medical examination. 16. In the case of Pradeep Kumar, supra, it has been clearly held that the relevant date for consideration of age factor is the date of application, not the date of consideration of the application. 17. The limitation is for the purpose of making claim i.e. for filing an application and not for medical examination. 16. In the case of Pradeep Kumar, supra, it has been clearly held that the relevant date for consideration of age factor is the date of application, not the date of consideration of the application. 17. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is disposed of holding that once the Management having decided to implement the impugned award, the plea taken by the Management, showing inability i.e. the medical report showing the concerned workman as over-aged on the date of the medical examination, is absolutely irrelevant and contrary to the above settled principle of law. 18. The Management once having already taken decision to implement the impugned award, shall proceed further with his decision, ignoring the contrary recommendation of the Medical Board on the point of age of the concerned workman. 19. Since the matter is pretty old, the Management shall pass appropriate order for implementing the impugned award within two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this judgment.