ORDER : 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6125 of 2016 whereby and whereunder learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision passed by the administrative authority dated 22/27.08.2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined. 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 Etwari Ram, was employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and was working as a Peon in the Executive Establishment Section. The said Etwari Ram died in harness on 12.09.1997. After the demise of the father of the writ petitioner, the Petitioner's mother Smt. Lalita Devi, widow of deceased employee, applied for employment on compassionate ground but she was informed by the respondent authorities that since she had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, she cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, she was advised to claim the monetary compensation or to propose some other name for compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner vide her letter dated 14.07.1998 requested the respondent authorities to give employment to her son, namely, Suraj Kumar Rawani @ Suraj Ram, writ petitioner herein and as the petitioner was minor at that time, the Petitioner's mother requested to the respondents to place her son in live roster and in the meantime, grant compensation to her with a further undertaking that as soon as the son, Suraj Kumar Rawani @ Suraj Ram would be granted employment in the B.C.C.L. monetary compensation may be stopped. Accordingly, the name of the Petitioner was placed in live roster and mother of the petitioner was granted monetary compensation. Thereafter, when the petitioner attained majority, he was asked to submit the requisite documents and has also been asked to complete the other formalities including for appearing in the interview. When the petitioner was successful in the interview, he was given appointment letter vide letter no. BCCL/PA-VI/3(13)/HQ/31/2001/9415 dated 11/14.05.2002 for the post of UG General Mazdoor. Thereafter, when the petitioner attained majority, he was asked to submit the requisite documents and has also been asked to complete the other formalities including for appearing in the interview. When the petitioner was successful in the interview, he was given appointment letter vide letter no. BCCL/PA-VI/3(13)/HQ/31/2001/9415 dated 11/14.05.2002 for the post of UG General Mazdoor. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for his joining, but he was denied his joining on the ground that there is some reference proceeding pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad which has been initiated by one Ram Swaroop Ram who claims to be the elder step brother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities communicated the petitioner about his employment being kept in abeyance vide its Letter No. BCCL/PA-VI/3(13)/HQ/31/2001/15190-92 dated 01.08.2002 on account of the pendency of the said reference proceedings. The respondent authorities thereafter advised the mother of the petitioner to appear and to contest their case before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and only after final decision is taken in the said reference, the Petitioner would be given employment. Petitioner's mother was also asked by the respondents to claim the monetary compensation in the meantime, which was stopped because of the processing of the claim for appointment of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to resume the monetary compensation till the order of abeyance of employment of the petitioner is revoked. It is the case of the petitioner that it came to his knowledge that Ram Swaroop Ram, step son of late Etwari Ram, has raised the industrial dispute, which has been referred to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad under the terms of reference which is as under: “Whether the action of the Management-Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad in refusing employment to the dependant son of the deceased-workman namely, Ram Swaroop Ram is justified? If not, to what relief the dependent son of the deceased-workman is entitled.” The reference was registered as Reference No. 253/2000 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2014 wherein 'no dispute award’ was passed stipulating therein that the parties did not appear and take interest in the case and, therefore, it is presumed that the disputes between the parties have been resolved. It is the further case of the petitioner that after passing of 'no dispute award', several representations were preferred by the mother of the petitioner as well as by the petitioner himself for grant of employment to the petitioner but no action was taken by the Respondent authorities. The further case of the writ petitioner is that on account of issuance of the aforesaid appointment letter, monetary compensation of his mother was stopped and thereafter when the said appointment letter was kept in abeyance, monetary compensation was restarted but for the intervening period, monetary compensation was not paid to the mother of the writ petitioner for which she had preferred several representations. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to move before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3778 of 2016 praying for direction upon the respondents to recall the letter dated 01.08.2002 and for direction upon the respondents for grant appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment letter earlier issued to the petitioner. The said writ petition W.P. (S) No. 3778 of 2016 was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.07.2016, whereby and whereunder the respondents were directed to take decision in respect of appointment of the petitioner. After passing of the order by the writ court, the respondents vide order contained in letter bearing Reference No. BCCL/GM (P&IR)/R. Order 2016/197 dated 22/27.08.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner for providing him employment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 22/27.08.2016 passed by the respondent authorities, the writ petitioner again filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6125 of 2016 which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2018 by declining to interfere with the impugned order. The aforesaid order dated 20.08.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6125 of 2016 has been challenged in the instant intra-court appeal. 3. It is evident from the fact as referred hereinabove that the employee, the father of the writ petitioner, died in harness on 12.09.1997. The aforesaid order dated 20.08.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6125 of 2016 has been challenged in the instant intra-court appeal. 3. It is evident from the fact as referred hereinabove that the employee, the father of the writ petitioner, died in harness on 12.09.1997. The fact further disclosed that an application was made under Clause 9.5.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter to be referred as NCWA) for providing appointment in favour of the writ petitioner and accordingly, the same was accepted by keeping the writ petitioner on live roster and when he has attained the age of majority, the appointment letter dated 11/14.05.2002 was issued for the post of UG General Mazdoor in Category-I. However, due to the dispute raised by one Ram Swarup Ram, the step brother of the petitioner, the appointment letter was kept in abeyance since the dispute was culminated into a reference case being Reference No. 253/2000. The mother of the writ petitioner has made application that up till the date when the appointment letter was kept in abeyance, she may be given the monetary compensation as provided under condition stipulated in NCWA. The same was acceded and the mother of the writ petitioner was paid the monetary compensation. The Reference No. 253/2000 was finally disposed of by a ‘no dispute award’ dated 12.08.2014. The writ petitioner has again approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3778 of 2016 for a direction upon the respondent M/s. BCCL to revive the letter of appointment issued on 11/14.05.2002 and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2016 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the ‘no dispute award’ dated 12.08.2014 and in case of any adverse decision, the same be communicated to the writ petitioner. The respondent BCCL, in the light of the order dated 19.07.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3778 of 2016, has passed order on 22/27.08.2016 by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that in view of the application made by the mother of the writ petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee, monetary compensation was paid during the period in which the offer of appointment was kept in abeyance and she attained the age of 60 years in April, 2010 while ‘no dispute award’ was passed on 12.08.2014. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6125 of 2016. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the factual aspect as also the condition stipulated in the NCWA wherein the widow since has been given the benefit of monetary compensation and while receiving the same since she has attained the age of 60 years in April, 2010, the day when the dispute was pending, since ‘no dispute award’ was passed on 12.08.2014. However, the respondent BCCL, on the request being made by the mother of the writ petitioner, had paid the monetary compensation and, therefore, there cannot be double benefit and hence, on this ground the writ petition has been dismissed which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 4. Mr. Sarju Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that once the appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner has been kept in abeyance waiting for the outcome of the dispute pertaining to Reference No. 253/2000, hence the moment the reference case was concluded, the order by which the offer of appointment was kept pending, will automatically be revived but no order to that effect was passed. It has been contended that there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner and due to pendency of the dispute before the learned Tribunal the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. The contention has also been made that under the NCWA, there is no provision to recall the order of appointment once provided in order to meet out the need of the dependents of the deceased employee but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the same requires interference. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL, has submitted that the very purpose of the NCWA is to provide immediate succor to the dependent of the deceased employee. In the NCWA, two folds provision has been made to provide financial help, i.e. first is through the monetary compensation and second is by providing appointment on compassionate ground. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL, has submitted that the very purpose of the NCWA is to provide immediate succor to the dependent of the deceased employee. In the NCWA, two folds provision has been made to provide financial help, i.e. first is through the monetary compensation and second is by providing appointment on compassionate ground. Another mode is that if the dependent, the son or the unmarried daughter, if found to be minor, i.e. below the age of 12 years or 15 years as per the applicability of the NCWA, the dependent will be kept in live roster and the day when such dependent will attain the age of majority, he or she will be appointed on compassionate ground. However, during the intervening period, either from 12 to 18 years or from 15 to 18 years, as the case may be, the mother will be paid the monetary compensation for sustenance of the dependents of the deceased employee. Admittedly herein, the day when the father of the writ petitioner had died, the writ petitioner was minor and, therefore, he was kept in live roster. He, when attained the age of majority, had been offered with the appointment letter dated 11/14.05.2002 and in the meanwhile, the monetary compensation which was being paid in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner, was stopped. But the step brother has raised dispute about the legality of the decision taken by the authority in providing appointment on compassionate ground and which ultimately culminated into a reference case being Reference No. 253 of 2000 and, therefore, the respondent management, after taking into consideration the dispute, has kept in abeyance the appointment letter. However, in order to provide financial aid to the dependent of the deceased employee and considering the request made by the widow of the deceased employee, the monetary compensation which was being paid and it was continued to be paid till the widow has attained the age of 60 years. However, in order to provide financial aid to the dependent of the deceased employee and considering the request made by the widow of the deceased employee, the monetary compensation which was being paid and it was continued to be paid till the widow has attained the age of 60 years. The contention, therefore, has been raised that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and by considering the fact that under the NCWA, there cannot be double benefit to the dependant of the deceased employee and in that view of the matter, the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with the impugned order dated 22/27.08.2016, therefore, the same requires no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. The fact which requires consideration herein is as to whether under the NCWA, there can be benefits contrary to the conditions stipulated therein. This Court, for the purpose of answering the said issue, deems it fit and proper to refer certain conditions of the NCWA which is having the bearing, i.e. Clause 9.3.0 (9.3.2) and 9.5.0 but prior to making reference of these conditions, it requires to refer herein that the National Coal Wage Agreement is a bipartite agreement entered in between different recognized unions of the functionaries of the Coal India Limited and the same is outside the conciliation proceeding. Therefore, the NCWA is to be considered as an agreement enreached within the meaning of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the agreement is being treated to be in view of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, therefore, the same binds the parties having its statutory fervour. The very object of the NCWA is that by way of a social measure the agreement has been enriched which contains agreement in between the parties to provide financial aid to the dependant of the deceased employee by either way, i.e. by way of providing the benefit of monetary compensation or by way of offering an appointment on compassionate ground. The relevant condition of the NCWA is Clause 9.3.0. The relevant condition of the NCWA is Clause 9.3.0. This Court is now dealing with the provision of Clause 9.3.0, rather, relevant for the purpose would be Clause 9.3.2 which reads as under: “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.” It is evident from the provision of the condition stipulated under Clause 9.3.2 that the same speaks about providing appointment in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee by offering such appointment in a case where the dependant of the deceased employee attains the age in between 18-35 years. The dependants have been defined therein. 8. However, the Agreement contains a provision under Clause 9.5.0 which contains a condition in order to meet out the eventuality that what recourse is to be taken in case the dependant, either son or unmarried daughter, as per the definition of the dependant as stipulated under the condition itself, is found to be minor. For ready reference Clause 9.5.0 is being referred herein which reads hereunder as: “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. 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 dependant 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 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 at paras (i) and (ii) above. This will be effective from 11.2000. (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant 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 finalized.” The decision has been taken between the parties that in such circumstances if the dependant is up to the age of 15 years, then such dependant will be kept in live roster till he or she attains the age of majority. Subsequent thereto, the age of 15 years was reduced to 12 years on 01.05.2000. The condition has also been inserted therein that if the dependant is being kept in live roster, then how the family will survive during the intervening period. The condition, therefore, has been made that during the intervening period, the monetary compensation will be paid in favour of the widow of the deceased employee till she attains the age of 60 years. 9. The fact herein is that the employee had died in harness on 12.09.1997, the writ petitioner was kept in live roster having the age of 16 ½ years on the date when his father died. The mother of the writ petitioner was paid the benefit of monetary compensation. 10. The writ petitioner, when attained the age of majority, had been offered with the offer of appointment vide appointment letter dated 11/14.05.2002 but at that moment, the step-brother of the writ petitioner, namely, Ram Swarup Ram, had raised a dispute which ultimately gone for its adjudication before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal being Reference Case No. 253/2000. The BCCL-management, after coming to know about the said dispute, has kept the offer of appointment in abeyance vide order dated 01.08.2002. 11. The widow of the deceased employee had made an application as would appear from Annexure-A & B appended to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 26.06.2023 making request therein that so long as the dispute is pending, she may be given the benefit of monetary compensation. 12. 11. The widow of the deceased employee had made an application as would appear from Annexure-A & B appended to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 26.06.2023 making request therein that so long as the dispute is pending, she may be given the benefit of monetary compensation. 12. The aforesaid request was acceded to by the respondent-BCCL and she had been paid the monetary compensation and she had been continued to be paid the monetary compensation till she attained the age of 60 years, i.e. up till the month of April, 2010. However, the fact about the disbursement of the monetary compensation in favour of the wife of the deceased employee has been disputed on behalf of the appellant by making submission that the entire amount of monetary compensation has not been paid. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by Mr. Das rather it has been submitted that the some of the amount has not been paid but it is not that there is laches on the part of the BCCL-management, rather, the widow of the deceased employee herself has refused to accept it and even as on the date, the aforesaid amount will be transmitted to her account. 13. Be that as it may, the fact remains that she had attained the age of 60 years and for the substantial period, the monetary compensation was paid and for brief period even if not paid and if the management is accepting before this Court that the rest of the amount will be paid, then the purpose of the aforesaid condition of making compensation till attaining the age of 60 years, according to the considered view of this Court, will be said to be completed. The purpose is for survival of the dependant of the deceased employee by either means, i.e. by way of monetary compensation or by way of appointment on compassionate ground depending upon the situation and the offer to be made by the widow of the deceased employee 14. ‘No dispute award’ was passed on 12.08.2014, i.e. after attaining the age of 60 years of the widow of the deceased employee. It appears from the impugned order that the respondent-BCCL, while considering the application made on behalf of the mother of the writ petitioner, has cancelled the appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner but the said order has not been questioned. However, Mr. It appears from the impugned order that the respondent-BCCL, while considering the application made on behalf of the mother of the writ petitioner, has cancelled the appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner but the said order has not been questioned. However, Mr. Sarju Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid order has not been communicated to him. Even accepting the said argument to be correct, the question is that when the said communication has been brought by the respondent-BCCL in the affidavit filed on 05.07.2022, although the same is after the disposal of the writ petition, but no endeavour has been taken by the writ petitioner to challenge the same before this Court by seeking leave. 15. The fact, therefore, remains that the offer of appointment dated 11/14.05.2002 has been cancelled vide order dated 09/10.04.2003 by justifying the reason that the offer of appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner since was kept in abeyance, therefore, the prayer for monetary compensation to be paid in favour of the widow of the deceased employee since was to be allowed, and, therefore, the offer of appointment has been cancelled. The order of cancellation although has not been challenged but the justification as per the management-BCCL is that under the NCWA there cannot be double benefit, rather, the benefit either will be of monetary compensation or will be of the appointment on compassionate ground. According to Mr. Das, since, the mother of the writ petitioner has already been paid the monetary compensation till she attained the age of 60 years, therefore, the very purpose of the NCWA will be said to have achieved its intent 16. This Court, on consideration of the factual aspect and going through the object and intent of the NCWA, is of the view that it is not that the management has created the dispute or raised the dispute with respect to the appointment of the writ petitioner, rather, it is the family dispute having been agitated by the step-brother, namely, Ram Swarup Ram, and once the dispute has been raised, the offer of appointment has been kept in abeyance. However, taking into consideration the very object of the NCWA as to how the family of the deceased employee will survive, the request of monetary compensation made by the mother of the writ petitioner has been accepted and the same was substantially been paid in favour of the widow of the deceased employee. 17. Hence, according to the considered view of this Court, it is not the case where the very purpose and object of the NCWA has been tried to be frustrated by the management-BCCL by not appointing the writ petitioner in service. The management, according to the considered view of this Court, is correct when the step-brother has made an objection which has been culminated into the reference case for its adjudication by the adjudicator, however, ‘no dispute award’ was passed on 12.08.2014 but in the meanwhile, the widow of the deceased employee has already availed the fruits of the condition stipulated in the NCWA. 18. The purpose of NCWA is to provide immediate succour so as the family of the deceased employee may sustain. Herein, the family of the deceased employee has sustained from the date of death of the deceased employee who died on 121.09.1997 by making payment of the monetary compensation up to the month of April, 2010 and as such, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from error, it is for the reason that the purpose of NCWA to sustain the family and when the family has sustained for a period of 8 years up to April, 2010 and thereafter, up till now then where is the question to provide appointment on compassionate ground on the settled position of law that the appointment which is to be made under the NCWA cannot be an alternative mode of appointment. Reference in the light of the National Coal Wage Agreement is required to be made of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, (2021) SCC Online SC 299, wherein arising out of the same agreement, direction was given by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of 10 years, but the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to set aside the said order by holding therein that after 10 years providing appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be proper, for ready reference paragraph-9 of the aforesaid judgment is referred herein which reads as under: “9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the Respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the Respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the Respondent who are the dependents of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the Respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the Respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the Respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 19. Herein, from the date of death it is 26 years now and as such, the appointment on compassionate ground if allowed to be granted, the same will be against the very object and intent of providing appointment on compassionate ground. 20. Herein, from the date of death it is 26 years now and as such, the appointment on compassionate ground if allowed to be granted, the same will be against the very object and intent of providing appointment on compassionate ground. 20. This Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances and coming to the order impugned, is of the view that the learned Single Judge since has passed the order on consideration of the implication of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA and the fact about the disbursement of the amount of monetary compensation, as such, this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not require any interference. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 22. However, so far as the grant of monetary compensation as has been undertaken by Mr. Das that the rest of the amount will be paid, we direct the Director (Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited to ensure disbursement of rest of the amount pertaining to the monetary compensation, if not already disbursed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.