JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the Award dated 23.06.2008 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 286 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to answer the Reference against the workman by holding that the stand of the management of Bararee Colliery of BCCL to deny employment to the petitioner is justified and with a further direction for providing employment to the petitioner in terms of clause 9.3.2. and clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The father of the petitioner late Israil Khan was a permanent employee of M/s. BCCL and was posted at Bararee Colliery as a Bill Clerk and died in harness on 02.09.1994. On death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Kulsum Nisa applied for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules of the respondent company. The respondent-company M/s. BCCL issued letter of appointment to the mother of the petitioner on 15.01.1996 and further directed her to appear for Medical Examination. However, on Medical Examination the age of the mother of the petitioner was found to be more than 45 years as such alternatively she was asked to apply for Monetary Compensation. In terms of the directions of the management vide their letter dated 25.07.1996, the mother of the petitioner applied for monetary compensation vide her letter dated 20.08.1996 and further requested the management to keep the name of the petitioner in Live Roster so that he could be appointed in terms with clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA on attaining the age of 18 years. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that Chief General Manager (I & R) BCCL Dhanbad in response to the application dated 20.08.1996 of the mother of the petitioner issued an office order dated 27.02.1997 whereby he ordered that the name of the petitioner would be kept in Live Roster in terms with clause 9.5.0 of NCWA and given suitable employment when he attains majority. In the said letter the CGM (P& IR) further ordered that the mother of the petitioner would receive an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as Monetary Compensation till the petitioner attains the age of 18 years. In the said letter the CGM (P& IR) further ordered that the mother of the petitioner would receive an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as Monetary Compensation till the petitioner attains the age of 18 years. In the year 2000 when the petitioner attained majority, the mother of the petitioner requested the management to give employment to her son in terms with the letter dated 27.02.1997. However, the Personnel Manager (MP & R) vide his letter dated 1/2.08.2000 informed the Dy. Manager, Lodma Area that the proposal of employment of the petitioner has been regretted by the competent authority which was informed to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 23.09.2000 issued under the signature of Project Officer, Bararee Colliery. The Union raised an Industrial Dispute and by an order dated 30th October, 2001 the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication which is given below: “Whether the stand of the management of Bararee Colliery BCCL's in denial of employment to Sri. Israil Khan, S/o Late Israil Khan is justified? If not, to what relief is the said dependant entitled?”. 4. On receipt of the order of Reference the Tribunal registered the same as Ref. No. 286/2001 and issued notices to the respective parties to submit their written statement/rejoinder. The union produced the letter dated 30.06.1997 marked as Ext. M-1 whereby and whereunder the CGM (P & IR) had ordered that the name of the petitioner be kept on Live Roster till he attains the age of 18 years and during this period the mother of the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as Monetary Compensation. 5. The Tribunal answered the reference against the concerned workman by holding that the stand of BCCL in denying employment to the petitioner is justified vide its order dated 23.06.2008 and hence this writ application has been preferred challenging the award. 6. Mr. 2000/- per month as Monetary Compensation. 5. The Tribunal answered the reference against the concerned workman by holding that the stand of BCCL in denying employment to the petitioner is justified vide its order dated 23.06.2008 and hence this writ application has been preferred challenging the award. 6. Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the award passed by the Tribunal is not justified in the eyes of law as the Tribunal has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner without appreciation of the fact that it was the respondent-BCCL who vide letter dated 27.02.1997 and 30.06.1997 had promised that the petitioner would be given employment on attaining the age of 18 years and as such the management of BCCL is bound by the principle of Promissory Estoppel. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the National Coal Wage Agreement the age of keeping the name of the male dependant on live roster has been reduced from 15 to 12 years and the same is effective from 01.01.2000 and on that score also the petitioner is entitled to be given compassionate employment as the date on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is 1/2.08.2000 and on that the scheme which was applicable is NCWA-VI whereby and whereunder the age for keeping the name in the Live Roster has been reduced to 12 years and the petitioner was more than 12 years of age on 01.01.2000. 7. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. 8. Learned Counsel for the B.C.C.L. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the Tribunal has recorded the findings with reasons and at paragraph No. 5 of the award the Tribunal has recorded: “It is admitted fact that widow of the deceased worker in view of the order referred to above received monetary compensation from the management but contention of the management is that in spite of receiving said monetary compensation Smt. Kulsumnisa submitted an application again before the management for employment of her son on compassionate ground. After receipt of the said application, the local office forwarded the same to the Headquarters for consideration, but the Headquarters rejected the prayer of the petitioner Smt. Kulsumnisa vide letter dt. 1/2.08.2000.” 9. Mr. After receipt of the said application, the local office forwarded the same to the Headquarters for consideration, but the Headquarters rejected the prayer of the petitioner Smt. Kulsumnisa vide letter dt. 1/2.08.2000.” 9. Mr. Mehta further argued that claim for compassionate employment of the son was regretted on the ground that age of the claimant's son was below 15 years on the date of death and as such claim was not covered under relevant provisions of NCWA-V. 10. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the B.C.C.L. streneously urged that the learned Tribunal had taken into consideration the provisions contained in clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-V and held that the management respondent has rightly paid monetary compensation. The widow of the deceased workman was continuously paid monetary compensation as admissible under clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-V until she attains the age of 60 years. It was further argued that the widow opted for monetary compensation and she was paid monetary compensation till she attained the age of 60 years and since monetary compensation has been received by the widow, the management rightly regretted the claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the widow opted for monetary compensation and she was paid monetary compensation till she attains the age of 60 years and since monetary compensation has been received by the widow, the management rightly regretted the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is erroneous and not acceptable to this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar”, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 held: “20. In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted to. Rejecting that contention in para 13, this Court held as under: (SSC p. 503). “13. …But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. Rejecting that contention in para 13, this Court held as under: (SSC p. 503). “13. …But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed some lump sum amount being made available to the family-this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.” “21. Referring to SAIL 15 case, the High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the Bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.” 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Somdeo Kapoor v. State of West Bengal”, reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 213 held: “Rules which are prevalent on the date when application is consider are to be applied and not the date when application is made.” Therefore, I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding considering for employment.” 13. Going through the provisions of NCWA para 9.5.0 (iii) - “Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant. Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workman who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:” (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 in on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (I) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000.” 14. In the instant case considering the provision of 9.5.0 as the case of the mother was rejected on 25.07.1996 respondent rightly found that age of minor dependant i.e. the petitioner is more than 15 years, therefore, respondent rightly issued letter dated 27.02.1997 and directed to keep the name of petitioner in live roster. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration that it was the respondent-authority i.e. the Chief General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad issued an office order dated 27.02.1997 whereby and whereunder ordered that the name of petitioner would be kept in live roster in terms with clause 9.5.0 of NCWA and given a suitable employment when he attains majority. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts that the name of the petitioner was kept on live roster and also in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner for employment was rejected on 1/2.08.2000, the scheme floated by the respondent i.e. B.C.C.L. clearly talked of consideration on the reduced age of 12 years as per the provision of N.C.W.A. para 9.5.0. as quoted above and admittedly the petitioner was more than 12 years of age on the date of consideration and as such his name ought to have been considered for employment by the respondent-authorities. This aforesaid fact has not at all been considered by the learned Tribunal and on this score itself the order is fit to be quashed and set aside as it suffers from legal infirmity. 15. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules and legal propositions, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal is not tenable in the eyes of law and resultantly is quashed. The respondent-BCCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment if he has not crossed the age of 35 years. 16. The writ application stands allowed with no order as to cost.