JUDGMENT : The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment delivered on 11.08.2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3514 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 21.08.2003 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed and set aside by which the application for employment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated which is proper for the lis reads as hereunder:- The husband of the petitioner, who was working as Truck Khalasi under respondent no.3, died in harness on 29.01.2001, which was duly informed to the respondents on 03.02.2001. Pursuant thereto, respondent-appellant no.4 directed all the concerned sections to remove the name of the writ petitioner’s husband from the register/record. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 14.12.2002 before the respondent no.5 stating that since she is not physically well for employment, her son may be appointed when he attains majority, which was rejected vide letter dated 02.06.2003 on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner again represented before the respondent no.4, but, it was informed by the respondents-authorities that no action could be taken on her appeal for reconsideration of her case, which has resulted in the writ petitioner’s approaching learned Single Bench of this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that, the terms and the conditions stipulated under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, (hereinafter referred to as “N.C.W.A.-VI), being a bipartite settlement and binding upon both the parties, it would be obligatory on the part of the respondents to extend the benefit as provided under the agreement. It has been agitated before the Writ Court that there is no stipulation of any time limit for submission of application in the N.C.W.A. but the respondents without considering the object and purport of the clause meant for providing social security to the employees, rejected the application solely on the ground that the same has been filed nearly after two years of death of the deceased employee whereas the time limit to apply for employment /payment of monetary compensation is one year from the date of death. The stand inter-alia was taken by the respondent-appellants before the writ Court was that the writ petitioner had submitted application for allowing monetary compensation to her and to provide compassionate appointment to her son on attaining the age of 18 years after expiry of more than one year and 10 months from the date of death of the deceased employee, but the limitation for submitting application for compassionate appointment has been fixed for six months only. It has further been agitated that limitation was further extended w.e.f. 27.11.2002 up to one and half years, which was later on reverted to one year vide circular dated 19.03.2005, but, even then also the case of the writ petitioner is not coming under the fold of the said circular and therefore, the decision has been taken by the authority to reject the claim and hence, having no infirmity there, the writ Court ought not have interfered with the same. 3. Having heard the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that following issues are required to be answered in this case. (i) “as to whether in the matter of live roster, the N.C.W.A. does provide any condition to make an application within certain time on behalf of the dependents of the deceased who is minor at the time of death”? (ii) In case the male dependent of the deceased employee was aged 12 years or more but below 18 years and an application for getting employment was filed after his attaining the age of 18 years, from which date the period of limitation would commence, i.e., from the date of death of the employee or the date on which the male dependent attained the age of 18 years? In order to answer the issue, the relevant condition of the National Coal Wage Agreement, Clause 9.5.0 is required to be referred which reads as hereunder:- “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents 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) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4,000/-per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/-per month or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (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 dependent 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 dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (I) & (ii) above. This will be effective form 1.1.2000.” (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years. (v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised.” 4. All the issues being entertained and they are being considered 5. It is evident from Clause 9.5.0 (iii) which stipulates that in case of death together. 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 dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he shall be kept on 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 dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above making it effective from 1.1.2000. 6. During the period, the male dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above making it effective from 1.1.2000. 6. It requires to refer herein by taking aid of the preamble of the National Coal Wage Agreement, which is a bipartite agreement entered in between the authorities of the Coal India Limited and the representatives from the different trade unions, that the said agreement having been reached other than in course of conciliation and hence, it will be said to be an agreement entered in pursuance to the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the National Coal Wage Agreement which is under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such, it would have a binding effect upon the parties having its statutory fervour. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also found the National Coal Wage Agreement to have statutory fervour. 7. It would be apparent from clause 9.5.0 that if the male dependent 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. The question would be as to whether any application would be required to be filed for even keeping the male dependent on live roster or it would be the duty of the employer to extend such help to the family which is in crisis in terms of the N.C.W.A.? Clause 9.5.0 nowhere stipulates that there would be requirement of any application to be filed for that purpose and also that there would be some time limitation for filing the same. 8. In such a situation in our view, since the service record of the deceased employee was already with the employer, there can be two ways to keep the male dependent on live roster. It would be the duty of the employer to make an enquiry as per the disclosure in the service record regarding the male dependent and pass an order for keeping such minor male dependent on live roster. The same can also be done if any application is filed on behalf of such male dependent. It would be the duty of the employer to make an enquiry as per the disclosure in the service record regarding the male dependent and pass an order for keeping such minor male dependent on live roster. The same can also be done if any application is filed on behalf of such male dependent. As no procedure has been laid down in the settlement/agreement regarding how the same would be initiated, in our considered view, the right of the male dependent of the deceased employee cannot be thrown away on that count. 9. Coming to the next question as to whether there would be any time limitation for filing an application for keeping the male dependent on live roster, it is admitted position that at the time of death of his father on 29.01.2001, the son, for which the writ petitioner is ventilating the grievance, was less than 18 years of age, thus, he was required to be kept on live roster. Therefore, on 14.12.2002 an application was filed by the writ petitioner before the respondent no.5 that in her place her son may be appointed when he attains majority which was rejected vide letter dated 02.06.2003 on the ground of limitation. 10. In our view, such action was harsh and dehors any provision or against the terms and conditions contained in the N.C.W. Agreement. When the widow was not fit to be appointed then the minor was required to be kept on live roster till he attained the age of 18 years then appointment should have been offered to him. There was no question of throwing the application on the ground of limitation as on that date on which the application was filed, the son of the writ petitioner, being less than 18 years of age, could not have been appointed, therefore, there was no question of any limitation operating for the purpose of appointment as per Clause 9.5.0(iii). 11. This Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vrs. 11. This Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vrs. Fulmatia Devi and Ors., passed in L.P.A.No.307 of 2018 has already held that in case of minor applicant on attaining the age of 18 years, the limitation for applying for appointment on compassionate ground will reckon not from the date of death of the employee rather from the date when the minor male dependent who was 12 years or above in age at the time of the death of employee, had attained the age of 18 years enabling him to be appointed as admittedly, no cause of action for appointment of such dependent could have arisen when he was less than 18 years of age. This Court, while taking such decision, had also tested it from another angle placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Textile Workers’ Union etc. Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others ( AIR 1983 SC 75 ) and also in Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ (1999) 6 SCC 459 ] holding that duty of the Court to interpret the provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the rule. Of course the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors., (supra) that as per the circular issued by the Coal India Limited, the limitation period for filing an application for getting employment under the N.C.W agreement would 1 ½ years but at the same time it has not been stated that in case of minor also who was 12 years of age but below the age of 18 years, and as such, could not be provided employment, even in presence of clause 9.5.0(iii), the limitation period will reckon from the date of death of employee. 12. 12. It is evident from the impugned decision, which is based upon the circular dated 19.03.2005, which speaks about the submission of application for employment by the dependent of a deceased employee under the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement to be filed within the period of 12 months but the said circular does not speaks about the time schedule for making an application to keep the dependent in case of minor on live roster rather the circular dated 19.03.2005 speaks about providing employment to the dependent, who dies in harness. But the authorities, by taking aid of the circular dated 19.03.2005, have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner which cannot be said to be a justified decision, for the reason that applying the circular dated 19.03.2005 in the present case for consideration of a case of male dependent being of 12 years or above in age, that limitation period will commence when he attains the age of 18 years and becomes entitled for employment. This is for the reason that when the concept of live roster is there and if the name of minor dependent is being decided to be kept in live roster to wait years, i.e., from the 12 years till attaining the age of maturity, i.e., the age of 18 years, the one would have to wait for 6 years to provide appointment. Thus, there cannot be any justification of the period of limitation of 6 months or 1 year or 1 ½ year, as the case may be, being applied in the case in hand otherwise the entire concept of keeping the minor dependent of the deceased employee on live roster will become meaningless. 13. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that no interference is required in the impugned decision. 14. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.