ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the reference dated 1st March 2000 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in the following language in favour of workman by the impugned award dated 27th December 2009 in Reference No. 143/2000 :- "Whether the demand of the union for employment of Sri Jadunath Rajwar, dependent son of late Rani Rajwarin, Ex-Wagon Loader from the management of Lodna Colliery of M/S. BCCL under para 9.3.2. of NCWA-V is justified ? If so, to what relief the dependent son of Late Rani Rajwarin is entitled ?" 3. It has held the demand of the Union for employment of the Respondent Jadunath Rajwar, dependent son of late Rani Rajwarin, Ex-wagon Loader from the management of Lodhna Colliery of M/s. BCCL under para 9.3.2. of the N.C.W.A. V justified. It has directed the management to provide employment to the Respondent No. 2. This has aggrieved management to approach this court. 4. Undisputed facts of the case relevant for consideration of the issues involved inter alia are as follows :- Rani Rajwarin, mother of Respondent No. 2 was wagon loader in Lodhna Colliery who expired on 10th of June 1985. At the time of her death, Respondent No. 2 his dependent son was 14 years of age. Her husband Arjun Rajwar was also in employment as a trammer in Lodhna Colliery. It is also undisputed that the application for compassionate appointment was first made in the year 1991 after about two years of the majority of Respondent No. 2, dependent son of the deceased. It is also not in question that under the N.C.W.A. II invogue at the time of death of the workman in 1985, there was no concept of keeping the dependent minor child in live roster. The concept of keeping the dependent minor son of an employee dying in harness on live roster came into vogue under the N.C.W.A.-V w.e.f. 01.07.1991. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid undisputed state of facts, the learned tribunal has erroneously held the demand of the Union justified and directed to give employment to the dependent son Jadu Nath Rajwar of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid undisputed state of facts, the learned tribunal has erroneously held the demand of the Union justified and directed to give employment to the dependent son Jadu Nath Rajwar of the deceased. 5. The same has been challenged by the petitioner management on the ground that the claim of the compassionate appointment made after six years of the death when dependent son was aged 14 years at the time of death, could not be entertained in terms of settlement arrived at between the management and the Labour Union under the National Coal Wages Agreement invogue from time to time. There being no concept of keeping the dependent minor son of the deceased on live roster till he attains majority, under N.C.W.A. II the Respondent No. 2 Jadu Nath Rajwar could not have been given employment on compassionate ground on attaining his majority. The claim of the compassionate appointment has therefore wrongly been upheld by the learned Tribunal. He has erred in law and in facts in rendering the award in his favour. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned award and submitted that at the time of consideration of his claim in the year 1996, after the application was made in 1991, the concept of live roster had come into operation. There was no time limit prescribed for making the claim for compassionate appointment at the relevant point of time, therefore claim of the compassionate appointment raised in the year 1991, after the attainment of the majority by the Respondent No. 2 was wholly justified. Learned Tribunal is therefore right in passing the award in his favour. 7. Learned counsel for the workman has relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satyandra Bhuiyan v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, reported in 2012 (4) JCR 568 (Jhr) : 2012 (4) JLJR 110 and submitted that in that case, the dependent son of the deceased employee who died on 24.03.2000 has been treated in the category of dependent to keep alive his claim for compassionate appointment without rejecting the claim on the prescription of the period of limitation. Reliance has been placed also on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. and Others, reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 144 in support of the submission that there are no specific limitation prescribed in the matter of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment, as the circular prescribing limitation have no statutory force. The National Coal Wages Agreement does not prescribe limitation in itself and therefore compassionate appointment could not have been denied on the point of limitation. From the facts of the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra) it is apparent that his father died in harness on 23.02.1997 after coming into force of the N.C.W.A.-V wherein concept of live roaster had been introduced w.e.f. 01.07.1991. Therefore the claim for compassionate appointment of the dependent on the ground of limitation was wrongly rejected, as his name was not kept in live roster. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered in Manir Hussain v. B.C.C.L. Dhanbad and others in W.P. (S) No. 5414 of 2004 dated 16th November 2011 in support of the statement that the consideration of the claimant for compassionate appointment is to be made on the date on which the relevant N.C.W.A. is invogue. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through relevant records including the impugned order and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. Factual matrix of the case noticed herein above reveals that on the date of death of the employee in harness in 1984, i.e. mother of the Respondent No. 2, there was no concept of keeping a minor dependent son in live roster applicable under the N.C.W.A. II invogue. Respondent No.2 admittedly was minor aged about 14 years at the time of death. The first application as per the admission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 for compassionate appointment was made in the year 1991 i.e. after two years of his majority. The claim therefore was belated. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 could not have been kept in live roster for consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on attaining his age of majority. 9. Under the aforesaid scheme of the N.C.W.A. applicable at the relevant point of time, the claim for compassionate appointment was therefore quite belated in the year 1991 when it was made. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 could not have been kept in live roster for consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on attaining his age of majority. 9. Under the aforesaid scheme of the N.C.W.A. applicable at the relevant point of time, the claim for compassionate appointment was therefore quite belated in the year 1991 when it was made. In the case relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Satyandra Bhuiyan or Mohan Mahto (Supra), the deceased in both the cases had died on 23rd December 2000 and on 23rd February 1997 in harness, while the dependent son was minor in both the cases who should have been kept in live roster by the Respondent till they attained majority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and the relevant N.C.W.A. in vogue rejection of the claim of the dependent son for compassionate appointment on ground of delay was found to be illegal as he should have been kept in live roster till he attained his majority. In facts of the present case, petitioner having attained majority in 1988 itself could not have been kept in live roster before coming into force of the N.C.W.A.-V w.e.f. 1st of July 1991. Therefore such benefit of keeping the dependent minor son of deceased employee in live roster could not accrue to the petitioner. 10. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has failed to take into account these relevant factors into consideration while deciding the reference in favour of Respondent No. 2 which suffers from errors apparent on the face of record. Therefore the impugned order cannot be upheld in the eye of law and is accordingly quashed. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Petition allowed.