JUDGMENT : 1. By Court: The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 64 of 2006, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent by holding that as per Clause 9.3.2 read with Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI ( in short 'NCWA-VI') the respondent is entitled for compassionate appointment and his mother is also entitled for compensation till her death. 2. The factual background of the case is that the father of the respondent was an employee of the petitioner-Management who died in harness on 15.03.1999. The second wife of the deceased employee submitted an application for her employment with the consent of the first wife but the same was rejected by the management vide order dated 29/30.09.2000 on the ground that the second wife is not entitled to get employment on compassionate ground while the first wife is alive. When the respondent attained the age of 18 years, his mother Smt. Anjani Devi (first wife of the deceased employee) filed an application dated 08.06.2002 before the Project Officer, Swang Washery for employment of the respondent on compassionate ground. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised through the Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh and when the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal vide Ref. No.64 of 2006. In the meantime Smt. Anjani Devi died on 24.05.2008 and she was substituted by the respondent as the “workmen” (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). The Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad answered the reference in favour of the respondent by holding that the respondent herein is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA-VI and the wife of the deceased workman, namely, Smt. Anjani Devi is also entitled for compensation till her death, which gives rise to the filing of the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of the death of the deceased workman, Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-V was in vogue wherein it was specifically provided that a minor whose age is 15 years and above, will be kept in live roster and as the respondent did not complete the prescribed age limit he was not kept in live roster. On comparative reading of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-V (Annexure-3) and NCWA-VI (Annexure-4), it will appear that the provisions are exactly same, except that the age of the male dependant of the concerned workman for the purpose of keeping him in live roster has been reduced from 15 years to 12 years. Learned counsel further submits that the effective date for applicability of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-VI is 01.01.2000 and as the concerned workman had died on 15.03.1999 i.e. prior to the effective date of the said Clause, the same will not be applicable to the present respondent. Learned counsel assailed the impugned award on the ground that although before the learned Tribunal there was a contest as to which NCWA would be applicable; yet the said issue was neither framed nor decided. It is further submitted that as per School Leaving Certificate of the respondent, his date of birth is 15.08.1987 and as such at the time of the death of the employee, the respondent was below the prescribed age of 12 years provided under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI. Thus, even if, it is accepted for the sake of argument that Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI is applicable for consideration of the respondent’s case, he had not attained the prescribed age of 12 years under the said clause. Learned counsel also submits that no application for keeping the respondent in live roster and for payment of compensation was filed by the mother of the respondent namely Smt. Anjani Devi. It is further submitted that the provision for providing monetary compensation to the female dependant of the deceased employee comes into effect only when the male dependent is kept in live roster and as the male dependant was not kept in live roster there is no question of payment of compensation. Learned counsel also submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be granted belatedly. 4. In support of his contention that the scheme which was prevailing at the time of the death of the employee will be effective on the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of this Court:- (i). Central Coalfields Vs. Dablu Bedia & Ors. (L.P.A No. 111 of 2015) (ii). Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. (L.P.A No. 562 of 2014) (iii). Central Coalfields Vs. Dablu Bedia & Ors. (L.P.A No. 111 of 2015) (ii). Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. (L.P.A No. 562 of 2014) (iii). Mukesh Kumar Ravidas Vs. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. (L.P.A No. 14 of 2014) 5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the deceased employee-Late Sundar Lal Mallah died on 15.03.1999 and on that date, NCWA-VI was effective, which is apparent from Clause 1.1 of Chapter-I of the Memorandum of Agreement which makes it clear that it was made effective for the period from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2001. He further submits that on perusal of the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI, it would appear that there is no provision in the said Clause to the effect that any application is required to be submitted by the minor male dependant to keep him in live roster, rather the Management of C.C.L was under obligation to keep the male dependant in the live roster who is above 12 years but has not attained majority. Learned senior counsel submits that on conjoint reading of Clause 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 (iii), it would be evident that the issue of keeping the male dependant in live roster arises only if no employment has been offered to the female dependant of the deceased employee. Since the application of second wife of the deceased employee i.e. Munni Devi was rejected by the Management of the C.C.L on 30.09.2000, the cause of action for keeping the name of the respondent in live roster, who at that point of time was more than 12 years, arose thereafter. While interpreting the cut-off date i.e 01.01.2000 as provided in Clause 9.5.0 (iii), learned senior counsel further submits that the same has been provided only with regard to the payment of monetary compensation to the female dependant of the deceased employee during the period the male dependant is kept in live roster. 6. In support of the above contentions the learned senior counsel puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. 6. In support of the above contentions the learned senior counsel puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 and submits that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the circulars issued by the C.C.L prescribing time limit for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be treated as the part of NCWA. 7. Learned senior counsel for the respondent further cited a judgment rendered in the case of Durga Kumari Vs. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 289/2008), and submits that in the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has held that in a situation where the delay in considering the application for compassionate appointment has been on the part of the Management, the dependant of the deceased employee cannot be dis-entitled from compassionate appointment on the ground of such delay. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress on the argument that at the time of the death of the employee, the petitioner was aged about 11 years 7 months and as such he was not entitled to be kept in live roster either under relevant Clauses of NCWA-V or NCWA-VI. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent argued that the date for keeping the respondent in live roster will be reckoned from the date when the application of the second wife of the deceased workman was rejected i.e. 30.09.2000 and since at that time the respondent had attained more than 12 years of age, he automatically came in live roster as per the provision of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI. 10. On perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, it would be evident that the aforesaid point raised by the parties have not been considered and it has simply been held that the respondent is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA-VI. Thus, before entering into the merits of the case, it would be relevant to discuss the judicial pronouncement as cited by the parties as well as the relevant provisions of NCWA-VI. 11. Thus, before entering into the merits of the case, it would be relevant to discuss the judicial pronouncement as cited by the parties as well as the relevant provisions of NCWA-VI. 11. The relevant provisions of NCWA-VI are quoted herein below for ready reference:- “1.1: This Agreement shall be called the NATIONAL COAL WAGE AGREEMENT FROM 01.07.1996 TO 30.06.2001. 9.3.2: Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Para 9.5.0.” “9.5.0: Employment/monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under: (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) and (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000.” 12. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) and (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000.” 12. From the above Clauses of NCWA-VI, it appears that in Clause 9.5.0(iii) the effective date is clearly explicit as 01.01.2000 and as such though the effective date of NCWA-VI has been prescribed as 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2001 in Clause 1.1, the same shall have no effect so far as Clause 9.5.0(iii) is concerned particularly for the reason that Clause 9.5.0(iii) itself contains the cut off date provided for specific purpose and on this score alone the argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the effective date of Clause 9.5.0(iii) will be guided by Clause 1.1 has no leg to stand. Thus, the case of the respondent is to be looked into by taking into consideration the effective date provided in Clause 9.5.0(iii) i.e, 01.01.2000. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncements has consistently held that the compassionate appointment, being an exception to the normal rule of appointment, is required to be construed strictly. So far the argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the cause of action for keeping the name of the respondent in live roster would have arisen only when the petitioner-Management had rejected the application of the second wife of the deceased employee is concerned, the Division Bench of this court in Central Coalfields Vs. Dablu Bedia & Ors. (supra) has held that the age of the dependant son at the time of the death of the employee will be taken into consideration for the purpose of keeping him in live roster. 14. In the same case of Central Coalfields Vs. Dablu Bedia & Ors. (supra) a Division Bench of this court has further held in para 4 (ii), which reads thus: “4 (ii) It further appears from para 7 of W.P. (S) No. 1140 of 2013 that when mother preferred an application she gave family relationship certificate and it has been mentioned that the age of her son was 13 years as on date of death of her husband. Thus, his name cannot be kept on a live roster. ----------------” Further, in the case of Jeevan Kumar Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Thus, his name cannot be kept on a live roster. ----------------” Further, in the case of Jeevan Kumar Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. (L.P.A. No.493 of 2015), a Division Bench of this court dismissed the appeal by holding that admittedly the petitioner was only 8 years of age at the time of death of his father, thereafter the respondent-CCL could not keep him in the live roster for the purpose of employment after attaining the majority. In the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. (Supra), in Para-4, it has been held as under:- “4. ......... It is not obligatory on the part of the appellants that one by one to all the legal heirs offer should be made. Suffice, it will be for this appellants to offer the compassionate appointment to the first applicant of the deceased employee. In the facts of the present case, the first applicant i.e the legal heir of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate appointment and he was also offered the compassionate appointment, but because of medically unfit, he could not avail the right of compassionate appointment. The legal obligation of the appellants comes to an end. There is no extension of the legal obligation on the part of these appellants to offer the compassionate appointment one by one to all the legal heirs.” 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited several judgments in support of his contention that the belated claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. In the case of Mukesh Kumar Ravidas Vs. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph-6(iii)(d), after citing several pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under:- “6(iii)(d) ......... Therefore, as per the aforesaid decisions, appointment on compassionate basis cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right because the very concept of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over sudden financial difficulties that are faced by the family of a deceased employee and therefore, it cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period because in that case the very object of compassionate appointment, i.e immediate relief to the family facing sudden financial difficulties, gets frustrated.” 16. In my considered view, if the argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the effective date for keeping the respondent in live roster should be 30th September, 2000 i.e. the date on which the application of second wife of the deceased employee was rejected, is accepted, it will lead to filing of frivolous applications before the management so that a minor dependant who was not entitled at the time of the death of the employee, may become entitled subsequently on attaining the prescribed age. Moreover, the judgment of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) relied upon by learned Sr. counsel for the respondent, shall not be applicable in the fact situation of the present case, as Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-VI itself provides for a cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2000. The case of Durga Kumari Vs. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors. (Supra) is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. Here, the mother of the respondent had chosen to nominate the second wife of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment whose claim was rejected by the management on 29/30.09.2000 on the ground that as per rule she is not entitled for compassionate appointment when the first wife is alive. From the above fact, it is clear that the dependant of the deceased employee had chosen a wrong person for compassionate appointment and as such no benefit can be derived out of the said wrong. In the present case, admittedly at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e on 15.03.1999, the respondent was not eligible to be kept in live roster as he was below the prescribed age for keeping him in live roster as per Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-V. Otherwise also, from the school leaving certificate of the respondent, it is apparent that his date of birth is 15.08.1987 and at the time of death of his father he was about 11 years 7 months which is less than the minimum age prescribed under Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-VI. Thus, even if the argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent to the effect that NCWA-VI will be applicable to the respondent is accepted, he will not come under the zone of consideration for being kept in live roster being below 12 years of age at the time of death of the employee on 15th March, 1999. 17. Thus, even if the argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent to the effect that NCWA-VI will be applicable to the respondent is accepted, he will not come under the zone of consideration for being kept in live roster being below 12 years of age at the time of death of the employee on 15th March, 1999. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the learned Tribunal committed an error in holding that the demand of the Union from the Management of Swang Washery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited to provide employment to the respondent-Pankaj Kumar, the dependant of Late Sunder Lal Mallah, under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 read with Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI is justified and hence the respondent is entitled for employment. Thus, the said finding of the learned Tribunal is, hereby, set aside. So far as the question of payment of compensation to Smt. Anjani Devi, wife of Late Sunder Lal Mallah (deceased employee) is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the circular dated 08.04.1995 issued by the Central Coalfields Limited (Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit), submits that for getting monetary compensation, the female dependant of the deceased employee is required to make an application. Since in the present case, no such application was made by Smt. Anjani Devi, the question of grant of compensation does not arise. 18. I find no force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the said circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not the part of either NCWA-V or NCWA-VI in which no such stipulation has been made. Thus, that part of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal wherein it has been held that Smt. Anjani Devi is entitled for compensation till death, is hereby affirmed. However, considering the fact that Smt. Anjani Devi has already died, Pankaj Kumar-respondent workman (son of Late Anjani Devi) would be entitled to receive the said monetary compensation. The petitioner- Management is, accordingly, directed to pay monetary compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of death of the employee i.e. 15.03.1999 till the death of Anjani Devi. The said monetary compensation shall be paid to the respondent-workman on behalf of all other dependants of Late Sunder Lal Mallah and Late Anjani Devi. The petitioner- Management is, accordingly, directed to pay monetary compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of death of the employee i.e. 15.03.1999 till the death of Anjani Devi. The said monetary compensation shall be paid to the respondent-workman on behalf of all other dependants of Late Sunder Lal Mallah and Late Anjani Devi. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of passing of the impugned award till payment is made to the respondent. 19. The present writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.