ORAL ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. C.M.P. No. 198 of 2016 1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred for restoration of C.M.P. No. 23 of 2014, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 21st April, 2016. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this petition, there are reasonable reasons for recalling of the order passed in civil miscellaneous petition and therefore, we recall the order dated 21st April, 2016. C.M.P. No. 23 of 2014 is restored to its original file with the same number. 3. This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. C.M.P. No. 23 of 2014 1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred for restoration of L.P.A. No. 241 of 2013, which was dismissed for default on 3rd January, 2014 in view of the order passed by this Court dated 10th December, 2013. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this petition, there are reasonable reasons for recalling of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal and therefore, we recall the order dated 10th December, 2013. L.P.A. No. 241 of 2013 is restored to its original file with the same number. 3. This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 241 of 2013 1. Office defects pointed out by the office are hereby, ignored tentatively. 2. We have heard counsels for both the sides and with their consent this Letters Patent Appeal is being disposed of today itself. 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner who had preferred W.P.(L) No. 534 of 2013 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th June, 2013 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the father of this appellant (original petitioner) expired on 12.11.1994. It is also admitted fact that the age of the present appellant (original petitioner), who is the son of the deceased employee of the respondent, was 11 years as on date of death of his father. 5. It is also admitted fact that the age of the present appellant (original petitioner), who is the son of the deceased employee of the respondent, was 11 years as on date of death of his father. 5. It appears that after 3 years of date of death of his father application was given for compassionate appointment, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. 6. The compassionate appointment was denied by respondents and hence, an application was given to appropriate authority by raising industrial dispute for referring the same under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal which was denied by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and hence, the writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P.(L) No.534 of 2013 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th June, 2013. 7. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has, prima facie, looked into the National Coal Wage Agreement and as per the said National Coal Wage Agreement if the age of the legal heir of the deceased employee is between 15 to 18 years his name can be kept in live roster and upon attainment of majority in a seriatim number chronologiwise as and when his term comes he can get the employment, but, as admittedly the age of this appellant (original petitioner) was only 11 years there was no question of giving him compassionate appointment whatsoever arises and hence, industrial disputes was not referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the concerned Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal. 8. No error has been committed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in not referring such type of climsical, whimsical disputes to the concerned court/Tribunal. The very purpose of Section 10 of the Act is to filter out frivolous types of disputes. Even otherwise also, learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that there is no substance in the claim of this appellant. Thus, this appellant is not covered by the clause of the National Coal Wage Agreement and as his age is not falling within 15 to 18 years as on the date of death of his father he cannot be given compassionate appointment. Thus, this appellant is not covered by the clause of the National Coal Wage Agreement and as his age is not falling within 15 to 18 years as on the date of death of his father he cannot be given compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the age of this appellant (original petitioner) was 11 years and hence, no error has been committed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner nor by the learned Single judge. 9. There is no substance, therefore, in this Letters Patent Appeal and we see no reason to take any deviation from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby, dismissed.