ORDER : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have raised no complaint regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 5534 of 2020 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 69 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5534 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 69 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 741 of 2018 6. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2651 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the direction sought for upon the respondents-Eastern Coalfields Limited for appointment on compassionate ground was refused by dismissing the writ petition. 7. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be referred herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The father of the writ petitioner-appellant was permanent-employee of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short E.C.L). He was employed as Driller. While working as such, on the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty, he was dismissed from service. Initially, a writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the Calcutta High Court vide W.P. No. 1071 of 2016 challenging the order of termination of his father from service and for consequential relief of retiral benefits. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that no cause of action has arisen within the State of West Bengal. Against dismissal from service, his father had raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication vide Reference No. 125 of 2003. Reference in the said case was: “Whether the action of the management of Chapapur Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL in dismissing Sri. Paddo Mahato w.e.f. 11.12.2002 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?” During pendency of the Reference Case, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant died on 09.10.2005. Reference in the said case was: “Whether the action of the management of Chapapur Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL in dismissing Sri. Paddo Mahato w.e.f. 11.12.2002 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?” During pendency of the Reference Case, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant died on 09.10.2005. The aforesaid reference was answered in favour of the workman through Award dated 28.10.2013 in the following terms: “That the action of the management of Chapapur Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL in dismissing Sri. Paddo Mahato (now dead), w.e.f. 11.12.2002 is/was totally unjustified. Hence the workman, if he was alive, would have been entitled to his re-instatement with full backwages, but now his substituted widow Paddo Mahato shall be entitled to all the financial benefits of her deceased husband accordingly.” The case of the writ petitioner-appellant before the writ Court was that after death of his father his mother had submitted an application on 05.01.2006 for his appointment on compassionate ground. It was contended by the writ petitioner-appellant that in terms of Award dated 28.10.2013, under which writ petitioner-appellant’s father was held entitled for reinstatement in service, on 09.10.2005, when he died it must be inferred in law that he has died in harness and while so, the writ petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under the provisions of National Coal Wages Agreement (N.C.W.A.). The respondents-ECL had put its appearance through its counsel before the writ Court on being called upon and contested the case by filing counter affidavit stating, inter-alia, that as per the Award only financial benefit was allowed in favour of the widow of the workman Sri. Paddo Mahato. It was further contended that in pursuance to the aforesaid Award since the benefit was confined only to the financial benefits it would not give any right to the legal heirs for compassionate appointment and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant was rejected and communicated vide letter dated 19.08.2016. The writ Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 06.09.2018, by holding that after death of the deceased-employee there cannot be any inference about reinstatement to be taken for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. The writ Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 06.09.2018, by holding that after death of the deceased-employee there cannot be any inference about reinstatement to be taken for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that immediately after death of deceased-workman 09.10.2005 an application was filed on 05.01.2006 for compassionate appointment but no decision was taken and when by virtue of Award the order of termination was held to be unjustified by the Tribunal, the authority of the E.C.L ought to have taken decision on the pending application dated 05.01.2006 but having not done so gross illegality was committed but this fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 9. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-ECL has submitted by drawing attention of the Court towards the application dated 05.01.2006, which according to him is not an application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground rather it is a ‘No objection’ given by his mother. According to him such application has only been filed on 06.07.2016, therefore, the fact about making application on 05.01.2006 is incorrect and since the application has been filed only in the year 2016, therefore, no such consideration can be given for appointment on compassionate ground due to inordinate delay in making application. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also finding recorded by the learned Single Judge wherefrom the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner-appellant happens to be the son of workman-Paddo Mahato, who was permanent employee of ECL. The father of the writ petitioner-appellant was dismissed from service on the allegation of unauthorized absence, for which, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred by way of reference case being Reference No. 125 of 2003 before the adjudicator. During pendency of the said Reference Case, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant died and thereafter his wife, namely, Pania Mahatian contested the case. During pendency of the said Reference Case, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant died and thereafter his wife, namely, Pania Mahatian contested the case. The Tribunal after considering the materials available before it passed the Award dated 28.10.2013 holding therein the order of dismissal as unjustified as the workman has died in course of pendency of the case, therefore, no order of reinstatement was passed. However, a direction for backwages was passed by the Tribunal, which was paid in favour of the claimants. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-appellant had filed a writ petition in the year 2017 before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2651 of 2017 seeking for direction upon the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that since the order of dismissal has been held to be unjustified but only because his father died during pendency of the Reference Case, the order of reinstatement could not be passed, and, as such, the father of the writ petitioner-appellant would be said to be in service and due to the death of his father on 09.10.2005, it will be treated to be death in harness and on that ground his case is fit to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Admittedly, before the Tribunal, in course of pendency of the Reference case, the workman-employee died on 09.10.2005 and thereafter, he was substituted by his wife. The Award was passed holding the order of dismissal as unjustified but order of reinstatement could not be passed due to death of the employee however backwages was directed to be paid, which the claimants have received. It is not in dispute that the reference can be altered/modified if any subsequent development in course of pendency of the reference case arises. In that view of the matter, if the dismissed employee died in course of reference it was incumbent upon the substituted claimants to make application for alteration in reference before the appropriate authority to alter the reference for its adjudication but the same was not done. In that view of the matter, if the dismissed employee died in course of reference it was incumbent upon the substituted claimants to make application for alteration in reference before the appropriate authority to alter the reference for its adjudication but the same was not done. This Court is observing this fact as the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant is to presume the death of his father in harness but that presumption cannot be drawn by the Court of law since it was available to the writ petitioner-appellant or his mother to make an application before the appropriate authority to alter the reference by seeking an additional prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the dependent of the deceased-employee for appointment on compassionate ground. In absence of such steps having been taken by the claimant, no inference can be drawn by the Court of law presuming the death of the employee in harness. Admittedly when the Award was passed the father of the writ petitioner-appellant had died way back in the year 2005 and if it will be presumed by Court of law treating the death of the father of the writ petitioner-appellant in harness and considering that aspect of the matter if any direction would be passed it will amount to alter the Award which is not permissible in the eye of law as once the Award has been passed under provisions of Section 17-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, the same will be enforceable after lapse of period one month and herein it has already been enforced and after enforcement of the Award the same cannot be allowed to be altered. 11. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration these facts more particularly to draw an inference about death of the father of the writ petitioner-appellant in course of service has passed the impugned order, which cannot be faulted with. 12. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided in view of the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant has filed application for its consideration in the year 2016 in case of death in the year 2005. 12. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided in view of the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant has filed application for its consideration in the year 2016 in case of death in the year 2005. However, the writ petitioner is claiming that an application was filed on 05.01.2006 but we, on going across of the aforesaid application, are of the view that the same was “No Objection” furnished by mother of the writ petitioner-appellant and, therefore, the contention made in this regard by writ petitioner-appellant to treat application dated 05.01.2006 as application for compassionate ground is incorrect. For ready reference, application dated 05.01.2006 is reproduced hereunder as: To, Dated: 05.01.2006 The Agent/Manager Chapapur Colliery Subject: No Objection Sir, This is to bring to your kind notice that my husband Paddo Mahto, who died on 9.10.2005, leaving behind me as a widow wife, nominee and legal heir. That, my son namely Birbal Mahato, who is going to apply for employment against the death of my deceased husband, to which have got no objection for ever. I, therefore request you to be kind enough and process the case of employment in his favour at the earliest. Thanking you. Yours faithfully (RTI of Pania Mahatain) Pania Mahatain W/o Lt. Padda Mahato Ex-Driller U. Man No. 813911 Chapapur Colliery It is settled position of law that no application for compassionate ground can be entertained after lapse of inordinate delay. 13. This Court, taking into consideration the discussions made herein above coupled with the fact that application dated 05.01.2006 is not an application for appointment on compassionate ground and for the first time application for compassionate ground has been made sometimes in the year 2016, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In the result, the present intra-court appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.