ORDER : Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J. 1. The writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the decision dated 31.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in W.P. (S) No.346 of 2018 by which the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant seeking direction to the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Limited to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of his father who died in harness, has been dismissed. 2. The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that his father was working as P.R. Trammer at East Katras Colliery, Katras, Area No.4 of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited who died in harness on 14.06.2003. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for her appointment on compassionate ground. However, her claim was rejected on 15.01.2004. Thereafter, an application for keeping the petitioner on live roster was submitted through the Employees’ Union on 30.07.2004. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the respondents-authorities have admitted that such application was received by them. 3. Let it be noted that the petitioner’s date of birth being 04.07.1990, at the time of death of his father, he was aged about 13 years. He claimed that on attaining the age 18 years in the year 2008, he submitted representation for his compassionate appointment, however, when the respondents did not respond to the representation, he was compelled to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, finding that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioner-appellant in approaching this Court, i.e., about 10 years after having attained the required age, held that the writ petition suffered from the vice of delay & laches and also that mother of the writ petitioner was being granted monetary compensation. The learned Single Judge has concluded his decision by saying that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide helping hand to the family in distress but it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, since the family has sustained the crisis over a period of 15 years, now a direction for appointment on compassionate appointment is not required to be given. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The stand taken by the writ petitioner-appellant in this appeal is that on attaining the age of 18 years, a male dependant of the deceased-worker has a right of appointment and since the respondents have failed to discharge their duty, a direction is required to be issued to them for consideration of such appointment. 5. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay & laches in approaching the Court and further, there is no crisis of maintaining the family as the mother of the writ petitioner is already getting monetary compensation. 6. In the aforesaid background of the factual matrix we have heard the parties and have perused the materials available on the record. 7. There are few facts which are required to be quoted here for better appreciation. 8. The employment or monetary compensation on the death of an employee/worker is governed by different provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreements in the present case that being National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. The Agreement has a statutory fervour as it is a settlement between the parties to it reached under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is admitted at the Bar that the present case of appointment would be governed by Clauses 9.3.0 to 9.3.4 of the NCWA-VI. The aforesaid provisions are extracted and reproduced as under for better appreciation: - “9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependants 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 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. 9.3.3 The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.3 The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” (Emphasis is ours.) 9. It would be apparent from the aforesaid clauses of the Agreement/Settlement that employment is to be provided to one dependant of the worker who has been declared disabled permanently or who has died in harness. So far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VI which is again reproduced as under: “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: (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (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) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx Note: xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis is ours.) 10. During the period the male dependant is 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. (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx Note: xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis is ours.) 10. It appears from the aforesaid provisions that if an employee dies in harness and no employment could be offered to any of the dependants and the male dependant of the concerned workman is a minor being 12 years of age or above, he will be kept on live roster and will be provided employment when he attains the age of 18 years. Till then the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per the approved rates. 11. As would appear from the pleadings, when the father of the writ petitioner-appellant died on 14.06.2003, though an application was filed by his mother for her appointment on compassionate ground, her claim was rejected on 15.01.2004 and, thereafter, the Employees’ Union made an application for keeping the petitioner on live roster. Aforesaid facts are also admitted as the respondents have admitted that such application was received by them. In our view, it was a fit case in which the writ petitioner was required to be kept on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0(iii) as no employment could be offered to the female dependant and the male dependant was merely 13 years of age. It has further been claimed that, on attaining the age of 18 years in the year 2008, the writ petitioner-appellant submitted representation for his appointment but the respondents-authorities did not respond to his representations and as such, the respondents, who were bound by the terms of the Agreement/Settlement under the NCWA-VI, failed to discharge their duties. No answer could be given to that on behalf of the respondents. Further, in our view, the learned Single Judge has erred in recording a finding with respect to the case in hand that compassionate appointment is only to provide a helping hand to the family in distress and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further that, since the mother of the writ petitioner has been provided monetary compensation for about 15 years, there would be no requirement of appointment on compassionate ground. 12. 12. In our view, there is a difference between the appointment being offered under the NCWA and the compassionate appointment in the Government Offices or Public Sector Undertakings on the basis of Executive instructions. Of course, such appointments in Government offices under the Executive instructions are provided only to tide over the immediate crisis on the death of the employee and when the family has been able to sustain the crisis, there will be no requirement for providing employment after several years. However, under the National Coal Wage Agreement, to which the employer and the employee are parties and has a statutory fervour in view of the same having reached between the parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the provisions would be binding upon all the sides to the Agreement. As has been discussed above, Clause 9.3.0 clearly provides that employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. In case the dependant is male then he should not be more than 35 years of age and in case of female spouse, she should not be over 45 years of age. At the same time, Clause 9.5.0(iii) of the NCWA-VI further provides that if no employment has been offered to any of the dependants including the female dependant and the male dependant of the concerned worker is aged 12 years or above, he will be kept on live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years and during the period the male dependant is kept on live roster, the female dependant will have to be paid monetary compensation as per the approved rates. 13. Thus, it is quite clear that such employment has to be offered to a male dependant irrespective of the period which has passed in attaining majority. Therefore, such ground that as the immediate crisis is already over hence no direction can be given for employment to the dependant of the deceased, has to be held to be erroneous. Further, when it is an admitted position that after attaining the age of 18 years in the year 2008 the writ petitioner had already submitted application for his compassionate appointment, the ball was in the court of the respondents-authorities to act as per the provisions of NCWA but they failed to do it. 14. Further, when it is an admitted position that after attaining the age of 18 years in the year 2008 the writ petitioner had already submitted application for his compassionate appointment, the ball was in the court of the respondents-authorities to act as per the provisions of NCWA but they failed to do it. 14. Such provisions under Clauses 9.3.0 and 9.5.0 being benevolent and beneficial provisions for the workers, when the respondents failed in discharging the duty cast upon them by the clauses of the Agreement under which they were bound to act, the case of the sufferer should not have been thrown away by the learned Single Judge as it has been informed by the counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that, the writ petitioner is aged 29 years of age whereas the maximum age up to which the employment can be offered under the Settlement is 35 years. In our considered view, such appointment under the Agreement being completely different from the employment being provided under the Executive instructions of the Government and the Public Sector Undertakings, the writ petition should not have been dismissed holding the writ petitioner to be fence sitter because he had already performed his duty by making an application for appointment after attaining the required age. 15. Thus, having filed the application well within the 18 months of limitation period which has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors [ (2007) 8 SCC 549 ], there was no rhyme or reason why the respondents would not consider the appointment of the petitioner as per the terms of the Settlement/Agreement. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge requires interference. 16. In the result, the order impugned it set aside. This appeal and the writ petition being W.P. (S) No.346 of 2018 are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in terms of the finding and observations recorded above. However, there would be no order as to costs.