JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the concerned respondents to forthwith give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner under clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the husband of the petitioner was working as Electrical Fitter in CCL, he was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence of about 13 days, which led to his dismissal w.e.f 24.12.1994. Being aggrieved, the husband of the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute, which was subsequently referred by the appropriate Government but during pendency of the Reference case before the Tribunal, the workman died on 21.11.2002. However, the Tribunal vide its award dated 22.01.2010 held the dismissal of the workman to be unjustified and directed to pay 50% of the back wages with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2010 made a request before respondent no. 2 to provide employment to her son under clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A VI, which was denied vide letter dated 22.04.2011 stating therein that since the award does not speak anything about the compassionate appointment of the dependent of the workman, the same cannot be given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner immediately after the award was passed whereby dismissal of the workman-deceased husband was declared unjustified made an application for compassionate appointment of her son. Learned counsel further submitted that even Regional Labour Commissioner vide its letter dated 11.01.2011 directed the respondent no. 3 to implement the award, wherein it was directed to extend all consequential benefits, and to consider the appointment of the dependent of workman under the provisions of N.C.W.A. VI, but it did not evoke any response rather the same was denied stating since the award does not suggest for compassionate appointment, such benefit cannot be extended. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after passing of award whereby order of dismissal was declared unjustified, the petitioner became eligible for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment and the respondents are duty bound to consider such claim as per provisions of NCWA even if for the sake of argument, it is presumed that award does not speak anything. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the one hand, the husband of the petitioner was illegally dismissed, which was declared unjustified by the Tribunal and on the other hand even after setting aside of dismissal order are not extending benefit and legal right accrued to the petitioner as per National Coal Wages Agreement. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors as reported in 2007 AIR SCW 6060, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that NCWA is an agreement as per Industrial Dispute Act and is binding on the parties and I.D Act would confer a right upon the dependent to obtain appointment on compassionate ground. Referring to above case law, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in that case the concerned employee died on 23.02.1997 and direction was given for compassionate appointment after 10 years of death of the concerned employee. Likewise, learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the decision rendered in the case of Canara Bank & Anr Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar & analogous cases as reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3212. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the award nowhere suggests that legal heir of the deceased-employee is entitled for compassionate appointment. It has further been submitted that the provisions of compassionate appointment of the NCWA is only applicable for employees, who died in harness in the instant case the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and at the time of the death he was not in service; hence benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to his son. It has further been submitted that even all other legally payable dues of the husband of the petitioner has been paid with all consequential benefit as ordered by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). In the case at hand, the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Electrical Fitter in CCL was dismissed from services w.e.f 24.12.1994 for unauthorized absence of 13 days, which was challenged by the workman before Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its award dated 22.01.2010 held the dismissal of the workman to be unjustified and directed to pay 50% of the back wages with all consequential benefits. But, during pendency of the Reference Case before Tribunal, the petitioner died. (ii). Had the husband of the petitioner been alive after the dismissal order was declared unjustified, the husband of the petitioner would have been reinstated in services. Hence, with the available recourse of compassionate appointment as per Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A, the petitioner immediately after passing of award applied for compassionate appointment of her son vide representation dated 22.12.2010, but the same was denied vide letter dated 22.04.2011 stating therein that since the award does not speak anything about the compassionate appointment of the dependent of the workman. It appears that the respondents has misguided themselves while deciding the application of compassionate appointment as immediately after quashing of order of dismissal, the petitioner without lapsing any time approached for compassionate appointment as per Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. (iii).From plain reading of relevant Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA, it appears that it unambiguously speaks that in case of death of worker while in service, employment is to be given to one dependent. Undoubtedly, the terms and conditions of the service of the workmen working in coal mines are inter alia governed by a “Settlement”, i.e. bi-partite agreement between the workmen and management, which known as ‘National Coal Wage Agreement” (in short N.C.W.A.) and as per Sub-section (3) of Section of 18 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it has a binding effect on the parties. View of this Court gets fortified by the laws laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court after discussing various decisions directed for compassionate appointment. 7. View of this Court gets fortified by the laws laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court after discussing various decisions directed for compassionate appointment. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court and the relevant clause of N.C.W.A and take a decision thereupon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.