JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No.10756 of 2019 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 70 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard. 4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.10756 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 70 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.772 of 2019 6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3134 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed and in consequence thereof, the respondents have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment according to the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement-IV (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCWA-IV’). 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be enumerated, reads as hereunder: The father of the writ petitioner namely, Jhari Mahto died in harness on 27.10.2008 in course of treatment at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) while working in Kedla O.C. Project under the Central Coalfields Limited. The brother of the writ petitioner namely, Mohar Lal Mahto had applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2008 but after submission of application for compassionate appointment, he met with a road accident and succumb to injury on 12.12.2009. After death of the brother of the writ petitioner her brother namely, Raghunath Mahto submitted an application on 03.04.2010 to the Project Officer, Kedla O.C.P and requested to provide compassionate appointment to his sister namely, Sushma Kumari. The petitioner further submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 08.04.2013 before the appellants-CCL stating therein that earlier also an application was submitted by her but was not accepted as she was less than 18 years old during the relevant time. The writ petitioner further requested that she has crossed the age of 18 years so her case may be considered. The writ petitioner further requested that she has crossed the age of 18 years so her case may be considered. The writ petitioner received a communication dated 21.11.2013, whereby and whereunder her case for compassionate appointment was not considered under the provision of Para 9.3.0 by the competent authority, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner agitated the ground that even though she was fully dependant upon the deceased father, who was admittedly an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited and died in harness. Thereafter, she became dependant on deceased brother, who died in a road accident. It has further been agitated that unmarried daughter also comes under the definition of dependant and therefore, compassionate appointment is to be provided as per the condition stipulated under N.C.W.A-IV, Para-9.4.0, 9.4.1, 9.4.2 (i) and (ii) and as such, the action of the respondents, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and as such, not sustainable in the eye of law. The respondents-CCL had appeared and filed a detailed counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge, opposing the contention of the petitioner and submitted that after the death of her father late Jhari Mahto, his nominee namely Mohar Lal Mahto, the brother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2008 but he died in a road accident before his claim for compassionate appointment could be finalised. Thereafter, his sister namely, Sushma Kumari, who was aged about 14 years and 6 months as on date of death of deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment on 08.04.2013 and hence she having found to be minor and female dependant, as such she could not be kept in live roster as per the condition stipulated in N.C.W.A-IV and hence her application for compassionate appointment was rejected. The learned Single Judge on deliberation upon the issues, has quashed and set aside the order dated 21.11.2013 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants-CCL has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the basic requirement as per the condition stipulated in N.C.W.A-IV which provides that no female dependant can be kept in live roster. As per the provision contained therein only male dependant is to be kept in live roster, if he has been found to be more than 12 years of age and below the age of 18 years. Herein, in the instant case, the father of the writ petitioner had died in harness on 27.10.2008 and thereafter, an application had been filed on behalf of the brother of the writ petitioner namely, Mohar Lal Mahto on 20.12.2008 but he met with an accident which succumb to an injury and died on 12.12.2009 and only thereafter on 08.04.2013 an application was filed by the writ petitioner for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground since by that time the writ petitioner had become major. It has been submitted that it is not a case which is to be considered under the condition as contained in Para 9.5.0 which is for the reasons that the writ petitioner being a female and as per the condition stipulated under NCWA-IV, only the male dependant, who is having age in between 12-18 years is to be considered and in absence of any adult in the family, the case of such minor is required to be kept in live roster. But it is not the case herein, since at the time of death of the deceased employee there was adult dependant namely, Mohar Lal Mahto, who made an application on 20.12.2008 but died in a road accident on 12.12.2009. As such, it is evident that it is not a case that the question of applicability of the provision as stipulated under Para 9.5.0 is attracted rather it is a case for applicability of the condition stipulated under 9.3.0 of the aforesaid agreement, which provides to offer appointment in favour of the dependant in case of death of the bread earner. The writ petitioner since was having age of 14 years and 6 months, is claiming for consideration of her case on the ground of applicability of the condition stipulated in Para 9.5.0 but the same is not permissible, in view of the fact that there was already major dependant in the family of the deceased employee at the time of death. However, the writ petitioner had made an application on 08.04.2013 on attaining the age of majority for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected on the ground that it is not a fit case to consider her appointment on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.0. But, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the said decision by quashing and setting it aside purely on sympathetical ground, without appreciating the fact that the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 27.10.2008 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground had been filed by the daughter of the deceased employee on 08.04.2013 i.e. after lapse of 4 and ½ years. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact and issued direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground without appreciating the fact and without examining the applicability of the provision as per Clause 9.4.2 with a further condition stipulated in N.C.W.A, has passed such order which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order rather the learned Single Judge has considered entire aspect of the matter in right perspective by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the authority dated 21.11.2013 on the ground that the writ petitioner is fulfilling all the criteria for consideration of her case for appointment envisaged under Para 9.4.2 wherein it has been stipulated that unmarried daughters are also entitled for appointment and taking into consideration the sympethetical circumstances, which is the situation due to death of the father and the brother, the aforesaid order has been quashed with a direction upon the appellants-CCL to consider the case of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. According to him, since the learned Single Judge has considered the object and intent for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, as such, the same suffers from no infirmity. 10. According to him, since the learned Single Judge has considered the object and intent for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, as such, the same suffers from no infirmity. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. It requires to refer herein that the National Coal Wage Agreement has been entered in between the Coal India Limited and the union of the workers to deal with the wage structure and other conditions of service including benefits of the employees of the Coal Industry under the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry as accepted by the Government of India and made applicable with effect from 15.08.1967. The aforesaid agreement is outside the conciliation proceeding and as such, it requires to be treated within the meaning of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the aforesaid agreement has got binding effect. The issue about applicability of National Coal Wage Agreement, as to whether the said agreement is having statutory fervour or not, has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto vs. Central Coalfiled Ltd. reported in (2007) 4 JLJR 144 (SC). It requires to refer herein that once bipartite agreement, by way of National Coal Wage Agreement, has been said to have got its statutory fervour within the meaning of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the terms and conditions contained therein bind the parties. It further requires to refer herein that the Industrial Disputes Act is by way of a beneficial legislation and once the bipartite agreement in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement has been entered pursuant to the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same having got the statutory fervour, therefore, the terms and conditions of the agreement will also be said to have its beneficial effect upon the workmen. 11. The instant case pertains to the bipartite agreement by way of National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII. 11. The instant case pertains to the bipartite agreement by way of National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII. Taking into consideration the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner which is 27.10.2008, the concerned provisions of the N.C.W.A which is relevant for the present case as contained in Clause 9.3.0 and Clause 9.5.0 are reproduced herein below: “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 dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependants 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. 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) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. In case the female dependant 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 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 (i) & (ii) at paras above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. (iv) xxxx xxxxx xxxx (v) xxxx xxxxx xxxx” It is evident from the provision of Clause 9.3.2 of the N.C.W.A-VI which stipulates that one dependant of the worker who dies while in service shall be given employment. Under the aforesaid condition, the definition of dependant has been stipulated as under Clause 9.3.3, which 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 dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependants of the deceased. The condition stipulated under Clause 9.3.4 provides that 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. Clause 9.5.0 (iii) stipulates that 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 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 (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. It is not in dispute that the respondent-C.C.L has issued circulars time to time fixing the period of making application for consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2. The circular dated 12.12.1995 provides a period of six months. Subsequently, the circular dated 12.12.1995 was cancelled by introducing another circular dated 01.01.2002 making six months to one year. It is applicable from the year 2000, meaning thereby that in the given situation if the case of the writ petitioner was to be considered under Clause 9.3.2, the application ought to have been made within one year from the date of death. Herein, the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner is 27.10.2008 and as such the application for appointment on compassionate ground if conveyed, it ought to have been made within one year i.e. up to 27.10.2009, if at all the provision under Clause 9.3.2 will be said to be applicable. It further appears from the provision of Clause 9.5.0 that in case when there is no adult male or female dependant for consideration under Clause 9.3.2, rather the male dependant is 12 years and above such minor male dependant will have to be kept on live roster for his appointment. The case of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that her father died on 27.10.2008 and immediately thereafter, one application was filed by the brother of the writ petitioner namely, Mohar Lal Mahto on 20.12.2008 but before taking such decision by the respondent authority, the brother of the writ petitioner met with a road accident and succumb injury on 12.12.2009. The further admitted position is that at the time of death of the father of the writ petitioner, she was having aged about 14 years and 6 months. The further admitted position is that at the time of death of the father of the writ petitioner, she was having aged about 14 years and 6 months. It is further to be clarified that even on the date of death of the brother namely, Mohar Lal Mahto i.e. 12.12.2009, the writ petitioner was having aged about 15 years and 6 months approximately, therefore, even after death of her brother, Mohar Lal Mahto on 12.12.2009, the case of the writ petitioner was not fit to be considered due to her minor age since she had not completed the age of 18 years. Therefore, she had not made any application for consideration of her candidature for appointment on compassionate appointment till attaining the age of 18 years and she made an application only on 08.04.2013 when she attains the majority of 18 years for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected by the C.C.L authority vide decision dated 21.11.2013. As per the provision contained in Clause 9.3.0 on account of death of the bread earner, the appointment is to be made to the dependant of the bereaved family having the age in between 18 years to 35 years and taking aid of the said provision, the brother of the writ petitioner made an application on 20.12.2008 but since he met with an accident and died, therefore, no conclusive decision could come with respect to fate of the application submitted by the brother of the writ petitioner namely, Mohar Lal Mahto. In view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be a case for consideration of candidature of the dependent of the deceased employee under the provision of Clause 9.5.0 as the condition stipulated there, provides in a case where there is no male dependant of the family of the deceased employee, but admittedly, in the family of the deceased employee there was male dependant i.e. the brother of the writ petitioner, who had made an application but died due to road accident on 12.12.2009. The question of consideration of an application under the provision of Clause 9.5.0 will only arise if there is no male dependant in the family of the deceased employee, rather the male dependant is there but having the age 12-18 years. The question of consideration of an application under the provision of Clause 9.5.0 will only arise if there is no male dependant in the family of the deceased employee, rather the male dependant is there but having the age 12-18 years. Herein, admittedly the writ petitioner had made an application on 08.04.2013 i.e. after lapse of about more than 4 and ½ years from the date of death of her father and about more than 3 years from the date of death of her brother namely, Mohar Lal Mahto, who died on 12.12.2009. We have considered the question also on the ground as to why the application submitted by son of the deceased employee namely, Mohar Lal Mahto, who made an application on 20.12.2008 was kept pending, and ultimately he died on 12.12.2009 due to the road accident. Even on the date of death of her elder brother namely, Mohar Lal Mahto, the writ petitioner was having the age of 15 years and 6 months and as such, her case could not have been kept on live roster as per Clause 9.5.0 of the aforesaid agreement being the female dependant and also on the ground that at the time of death of the father of the writ petitioner there was male dependant available in the family of the deceased employee. Admittedly the application has been filed by the writ petitioner after delay of more than 4 and ½ years from the date of death of her father and more than 3 years from the death of brother, which is beyond limitation period as per the circular dated 01.01.2002 whereby and whereunder, the application is required to be filed within one year from the date of death for its consideration under Clause 9.3.2 and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner which has been rejected by the appellants-CCL, cannot said to be suffer from any infirmity. The learned Single Judge, has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and travelled beyond the condition of the agreement purely by taking sympathetic view. 12. According to our considered view, no order can be passed on sympathy, deviating from the condition stipulated under the act, rule and regulation. It is settled that the National Coal Wage Agreement being statutory in nature cannot be allowed to be deviated. 12. According to our considered view, no order can be passed on sympathy, deviating from the condition stipulated under the act, rule and regulation. It is settled that the National Coal Wage Agreement being statutory in nature cannot be allowed to be deviated. Learned Single Judge has passed the order by taking aid of the provision of Para 9.4.2 of the aforesaid agreement. We have examined the condition stipulated in Para 9.4.2, which stipulates that employment of one dependant of the worker is to be provided who dies while in service. The provision of Clause 9.4.2 has been examined without appreciating the applicability of the circular which contains the period of limitation for filing of an application for the parties within a period of one year. It requires to refer the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto vs. Central Coalfiled Ltd. reported in (2007) 4 JLJR 144 (SC) wherein at paragraph 10 the circular containing the period of limitation has been found to be correct approach of the C.C.L and in that view of the matter if any application has been filed after the period of aforesaid limitation, the same is required to be dismissed but this aspect of the matter has not been considered, even the fact is admitted that the application filed by the writ petitioner was beyond the period of one year. 13. Accordingly, in our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and hence, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that at least direction may be passed for monetary compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-CCL has raised no objection to such submission. 16. In view thereof, the writ petitioner is given liberty to approach before the authority by filing representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order for consideration of her case for payment of monetary compensation. If such application would be filed, the appellants-CCL will consider the same in accordance with law and take decision within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 17. If such application would be filed, the appellants-CCL will consider the same in accordance with law and take decision within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 17. Needless to say that if the claim of the writ petitioner is admissible as per the condition stipulated in Clause 9.5.0 of the aforesaid agreement, the monetary compensation shall be paid to the writ petitioner within the period aforesaid. 18. Consequently, I.A. No.10757 of 2019 for stay also stands disposed of.