JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3974 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the reasoned order dated 04.11.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that she was already married at the time of death of her father and was residing separately and not dependent on the earnings of her father and, as such, the writ petitioner does not come under term “dependent” for claim of employment under the provision of NCWA. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The father of the writ petitioner, namely Late Bajo Ram was a permanent employee under the respondent-Company and was working as M/Loader (Grade-IV employee) in Simalbahal Colliery of the respondent no.1 died on 02.03.2013 while in service. 3. After the death of her father, the writ petitioner was entitled to get service under the respondents on compassionate ground as per the provisions laid down in NCWA and based on such provision, the writ petitioner applied for her appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The respondent concerned asked the petitioner to get succession certificate to establish her right and against such demand of succession certificate, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ application vide W.P.(S) No.3426 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 12.05.2016 held that the demand of succession certificate was not justified and further observed that the respondent will pass a reasoned order as per law, circular and as per NCWA, on the merit of the case of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the respondent authority finds that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment, appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner within a month thereafter. 5. If the respondent authority finds that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment, appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner within a month thereafter. 5. Thereafter, in compliance of order passed by this Court dated 12.05.2016, the concerned respondent passed order dated 12.08.2016 and intimated the writ petitioner that she cannot be given employment since her deceased father Bajo Ram had declared in the service record that she was married. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the concerned respondent, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7320 of 2016 challenging the order dated 12.08.2016 and this Court vide order dated 06.08.2019 disposed of the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.08.2016. 7. The writ petitioner made representation before the respondent-authority requesting therein to consider her claim and provide employment to her on compassionate ground. 8. In pursuance of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7320 of 2016 dated 6.08.2019, the concerned respondent passed reasoned order dated 04.11.2020 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not solely dependent of her deceased father late Bajo Ram, and further she failed to prove her dependency on her father. 9. Being aggrieved with the reasoned order dated 04.11.2020, the writ petitioner again moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3974 of 2020 which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2022 against which the present intra-court appeal. 10. It is evident from the material available on record that the writ petitioner claims to be the unmarried daughter of Late Bajo Ram who has died on 02.03.2013. Thereafter, she has made application for consideration of her case on compassionate ground in view of the condition stipulated under the NCWA. 11. The said claim was rejected on the ground that she was married daughter and, as such, the writ petitioner, being aggrieved thereto, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7320 of 2016 challenging the aforesaid order. 12. The Coordinate learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 06.08.2019, has remanded the matter for fresh consideration by leaving it open upon the writ petitioner to prove that she was solely dependent upon her deceased father. 13. 12. The Coordinate learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 06.08.2019, has remanded the matter for fresh consideration by leaving it open upon the writ petitioner to prove that she was solely dependent upon her deceased father. 13. The claim has again been reconsidered and a decision was taken on 04.11.2020 whereby and whereunder the respondent has come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is not found to be dependent upon the deceased employee being the married daughter, against which writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No.3974 of 2020 which having been dismissed, therefore, the instant appeal. 14. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, has submitted by referring to the impugned order wherein roving enquiry has been conducted regarding the issue of marital status of the writ petitioner as also her dependency. 15. It has been submitted that there is no cogent evidence having been gathered by the authority concerned in order to come to the conclusion that the appellant was married at the time when her father had died. 16. It has further been contended that even accepting that the writ petitioner was married but there is no consideration for coming to a conclusion that she was not dependent upon her deceased father and, as such, the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 suffers from patent illegality but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact while dismissing the writ petition, as such, the instant appeal. 17. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL, has defended the impugned order by taking the ground that the respondents have considered the marital status of the writ petitioner which is based upon the declaration given by the concerned deceased employee wherein while submitting the declaration form, specific disclosure was made about the marital status of the appellant declaring her to be married. 18. It has further been contended that since the appellant is a married daughter and, as such, she cannot be considered to be dependent upon the deceased father and there is no document to that effect having been brought to the notice of the authority concerned in substance to prove that the appellant was dependent upon the deceased father which is the requirement under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA. 19. 19. It has further been contended that the father has also declared that she is not dependent upon him. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the BCCL, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition taking into consideration the reason assigned in the impugned order to be just and proper, then what has been argued on behalf of the appellant is not worth to be considered and hence, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the material available on record. 22. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant is claiming her appointment on compassionate ground in view of the condition No.9.3.0 as available in the NCWA. The said condition contained in the aforesaid agreement contains a condition of the dependent, as would be evident from the bare reading of Clause 9.3.0 which reads hereunder as :- “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 dependent 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.” 23. It is evident from the aforesaid clause that the dependents have been defined therein wherein the married daughter has been excluded, rather, the unmarried daughter has been considered to be a dependent. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 23. It is evident from the aforesaid clause that the dependents have been defined therein wherein the married daughter has been excluded, rather, the unmarried daughter has been considered to be a dependent. However, the issue of married daughter is also required to be considered but only condition for consideration of candidature of such candidate is that the candidate is to substantiate that the married daughter is dependent upon the deceased employee. 24. The admitted position herein is that the appellant is the married daughter. However, the said aspect of the matter has been disputed on behalf of the appellant. The declaration regarding the marital status of the appellant is based upon the declaration furnished by the deceased employee wherein the declaration has been given that the appellant is married and, as such, she is not dependent upon the concerned employee, as would appear from the declaration form as available in the paper book as also the affidavit dated 03.09.2012 submitted by the deceased employee in the office after the death of his wife wherein he has requested for deletion of the name of his wife (deceased) and the appellant. 25. However, when this aspect of the matter has been disputed by the appellant, this Court, in order to come to the conclusion, has directed the respondent BCCL to conduct an enquiry in this regard. The enquiry has been conducted and the outcome of the said enquiry has been brought on record by way of an affidavit filed on 06.10.2023. 26. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL, by referring to the paragraph of the said affidavit, has submitted that in course of conducting enquiry, it has now conclusively been proved that the appellant is married, as such, whatever declaration has been given by the father of the appellant in the declaration form has been found to be in corroboration with the local enquiry conducted by the respondents. 27. We have considered the statements made in the said affidavit and found that a local enquiry has been conducted regarding the marital status of the appellant wherein it has been found that the appellant is married. 28. 27. We have considered the statements made in the said affidavit and found that a local enquiry has been conducted regarding the marital status of the appellant wherein it has been found that the appellant is married. 28. This Court, in view of the declaration given by the deceased employee in the declaration form, coupled with the subsequent enquiry conducted by the respondents, is of the view that the marital status of the appellant that she is married found corroboration. However, NCWA provides that even appointment can be provided on compassionate ground in favour of the married daughter but the condition for such consideration is that the married daughter is to show dependency upon the deceased father. 29. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact that the NCWA does not provide any condition for providing appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the married daughter which is the ground/reason taken by the authority concerned while negating the claim of appointment on compassionate ground while passing the impugned order dated 04.11.2020, therefore, is of the view that the decision so taken by the administrative authority suffers from no error. 30. The reason for reaching to such conclusion is that the NCWA since is an agreement in view of the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act which has got statutory fervor, as has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 as under paragraph 10 thereof, we are of the view that any agreement entered in between the union and the concerned authority of the Coal India Limited which is strictly to be adhered to, for ready reference the extract of paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred hereunder as:- “10. A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. … … … … … … …” 31. A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. … … … … … … …” 31. This Court, having discussed the aforesaid factual as also the legal issue and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact about applicability of NCWA wherein there is no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the married daughter. 32. The marital status of the appellant since has conclusively been proved by virtue of declaration given by the deceased employee, father of the appellant, having been corroborated by way of subsequent enquiry, we are of the view that if the learned Single Judge has taken such view by not showing interference with the impugned order dated 04.11.2020, the same suffers from no error. 33. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.