ORDER : 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.2353 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 by which industrial dispute has been denied to be referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication, as also the claim of the writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been denied to be granted in view of the provision made under Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement (in short NCWA). Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) It is pleaded that the mother of the appellant, namely, Pari Baurin was the permanent employee under the respondent-BCCL and she was appointed on 21.09.1973 and she continued to render her services to the satisfaction of the respondents till she died on 23.06.1995 in harness leaving behind her son, the appellant herein. (ii) It is pleaded that at the time of death, the age of the appellant was 12 years. He submitted representation before the respondent on 12.08.1997 and requested to keep him in live roster as his age was 12 years at the time of death of his mother for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to him. (iii) It is pleaded that the appellant continued to approach the respondents after attaining majority in the year 2001 but the respondent-BCCL did not provide employment to the appellant in view of provision made under clause 9.5.0 of NCWA. Thereafter the appellant again submitted a representation on 24.09.2012 before the respondent no. 5. (iv) It is further pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances raised industrial dispute through the registered Trade Union Jharkhand Janta Majdoor Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 17.06.2015. (v) Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) issued a letter dated 09.07.2015 to the concerned parties for appearance for the purpose of initiating Conciliation Proceeding. (vi) It is pleaded that after the Conciliation Proceeding as Management declined for agreement and failure was recorded as such the same was sent to the appropriate government vide letter dated 17.02.2016. (v) Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) issued a letter dated 09.07.2015 to the concerned parties for appearance for the purpose of initiating Conciliation Proceeding. (vi) It is pleaded that after the Conciliation Proceeding as Management declined for agreement and failure was recorded as such the same was sent to the appropriate government vide letter dated 17.02.2016. (vii) It is pleaded that the appropriate government issued a letter dated 18.05.2016 whereby and whereunder the industrial dispute has been denied to be referred for adjudication on the ground that "Shri Anil Bouri, the dependent son of Late Pari Bourin who died on 23/06/1995, is not entitled for compassionate employment under the provisions of NCWA-V since, his age was below 15 years at the time of death of his mother. In fact, the provisions of compassionate employment for minor under NCWA-V states that under clause 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned workers is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a Live Roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. Hence, keeping his name in the Live Roster Register does not arise". (viii) It is further pleaded that the letter dated 18.05.2016 denying reference of the industrial dispute raised by the appellant for adjudication referred the same to Industrial Tribunal is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the appropriate government is not provided jurisdiction to adjudicate and pass decision of the industrial dispute usurping the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the adjudication of industrial dispute is adjudicated on the basis of the evidences adduced by the parties and other materials brought on record in course of evidence as such the procedure as applied by the appropriate government cannot be said to be proper, legal and judicious. 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being W.P.(L) No.2353 of 2023, but the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of unexplained delay of 7 years to approach this Court as also to issue any mandamus directing the respondent-BCCL to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and, consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 4. 4. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner (appellant herein). Submission on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner: 5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: (i) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the decision by refusing to refer the matter before Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government cannot be said to be proper, even though the delay is there. (ii) Such submission has been made on the ground that appropriate government is not a quasi-judicial functionary to take decision on merit. It has been contended that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. (iii) It has been submitted that even the learned Single Judge has decided the issue of appointment on compassionate ground by taking into consideration the age of the appellant was 12 years at the time of death of his mother. (iv) The learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the learned Single Judge while on the one hand has refused to interfere with the decision taken by the appropriate government by refusing to refer the issue for its adjudication before the Tribunal, while on the other hand entered into the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment which cannot be said to be proper, rather the same ought to have been considered by the learned Tribunal on going through the various documents and the evidence which was to be laid on behalf of the parties. (v) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that there cannot be any waiver or delay in case of violation of fundamental rights of life and livelihood. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a case which needs interference so that the issue may be decided by the adjudicator by making reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-Authority: 7. Per contra, Mr. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a case which needs interference so that the issue may be decided by the adjudicator by making reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-Authority: 7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) It has been contended that the appropriate government has rightly refused to refer the dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal, i.e., the adjudicator on consideration of the belated claim, since, the order passed by the appropriate government on 18.05.2016, but the writ petition has been filed on 26.04.2023, i.e., after delay of about 7 years. (ii) The learned counsel has submitted that the matter has rightly not been referred before the Industrial Tribunal on consideration of the fact that the appellant at the relevant time was below the age of 15 years and as per the clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-V if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned workers is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on live roaster as such adjudication had rightly been denied to be referred. 8. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has passed the impugned judgment and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error and, as such, the impugned judgment needs no interference. Analysis: 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the material brought on records as available in the pleading as contained in the memo of appeal. 10. The issue which requires consideration as to whether the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the appropriate government by refusing to refer the dispute for its adjudication by making appropriate reference in view of provision of section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. 10. The issue which requires consideration as to whether the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the appropriate government by refusing to refer the dispute for its adjudication by making appropriate reference in view of provision of section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the underlined provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for the very purpose to refuse the dispute in a case of meeting out the penury of the family which has been caused due to sudden demise of an employee. 12. It needs to refer herein that the Industrial Disputes Act was designed to provide a self-contained code to compel the parties to resort to industrial arbitration for the resolution of existing or apprehended disputes without prescribing statutory norms for varied and variegated industrial relation norms so that the Forums created for resolution of disputes may remain unhampered by any statutory control and devise rational norms keeping pace with improved industrial relations reflecting and imbibing socio-economic justice. That being the object of the Act, the Court by interpretative process must strive to reduce the field of conflict and expand the area of agreement and show its preference for upholding agreements sanctified by mutuality and consensus in larger public interest, namely, to eschew industrial strife, confrontation and consequent wastage. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen and others v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. ( 1984) 1 SCC 728. 13. Further Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein referred as Act 1947) empowers the appropriate government to refer industrial disputes for resolution to various authorities. This includes referring disputes to Boards for promoting settlements, Courts for inquiries, and Labor Courts or Tribunals for adjudication. The object of reference is to maintain industrial peace and not mere adjudication of dispute between two private parties, reference in this regard be made to Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Virendra Bhandari v. Rajasthan SRTC , (2002) 9 SCC 104 . 14. The object of reference is to maintain industrial peace and not mere adjudication of dispute between two private parties, reference in this regard be made to Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Virendra Bhandari v. Rajasthan SRTC , (2002) 9 SCC 104 . 14. At the same time, it is equally settled that Government is entitled to go into prima facie merits of dispute for deciding whether to refer the same or not, reference in this regard be made to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists and others v. State of Bombay and another , AIR 1964 SC 1617 . 15. It needs to refer herein that the appointment on compassionate ground even under the NCWA has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon , (2021) 16 SCC 384 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any appointment on compassionate ground after delay of 9 years since the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succor 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, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is referred hereunder as: "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 dependants of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependants of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after the 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. 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." 16. Further, the law with respect to the appointment on compassionate ground has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted by way of an alternative mode of appointment, rather the same is to be provided for the purpose of meeting out the penury due to sudden demise of the bread earner. 17. In the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another , (1996) 1 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the object of compassionate appointment held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who died in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. 18. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar and Another , (1996) 8 SCC 23 the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to grant relief to the dependent of a government employee who was minor at the time of death of the bread earning employee. 19. In the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Paras Nath , AIR 1998 SC 2612 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. 20. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vs. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. 20. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vs. K.R. Vishwanath , (2005) 7 SCC 206 the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration its various judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public service can only be made on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of justice under peculiar circumstances. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while interpreting with the very object and aim of the appointment on compassionate ground in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Raja Ram , (2010) 15 SCC 366, has held that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be provided with the object and aim to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent of the bereaved family. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court yet in the other judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138 , has been pleased to hold that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided after delay, since, if the dependent of the bereaved family has been able to survive, therefore, the same cannot be provided by way of compassionate ground. 23. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled connotation of law, this Court is now adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case. Admittedly herein, mother of the appellant died on 23.06.1995. The writ petitioner/appellant has raised dispute before the competent authority. The conciliation failed and the failure report was submitted before the appropriate government in view of the provision of section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appropriate government has passed an order denying to refer the issue for its adjudication before the learned Tribunal on the ground is not entitled for compassionate employment under the provisions of NCWA-V since, his age was below 15 years at the time of death of his mother. The appropriate government has passed an order denying to refer the issue for its adjudication before the learned Tribunal on the ground is not entitled for compassionate employment under the provisions of NCWA-V since, his age was below 15 years at the time of death of his mother. In fact, the provisions of compassionate employment for minor under NCWA-V states that under clause 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned workers is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a Live Roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. Hence, keeping his name in the Live Roster Register does not arise. 24. The aforesaid denial to refer the dispute before the learned Tribunal has been challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the said decision as also has refused to issue mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. Such reason is based upon the delay in raising the dispute and further, the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has been considered to be not available due to survival of the dependent of the family for a long time. 25. The aforesaid view, in our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error due to the reason that the dispute even if would have been referred to the adjudicator, then there cannot be adjudication by passing the award in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground of death of the deceased employee on 23.06.1995 and further the dispute has been sent before the appropriate government for referral after delay of more than 15 years since death of the said employee . 26. If the dispute would have been referred before the learned Tribunal by the appropriate government by passing an order, then the learned Tribunal on the basis of the settled position of law that providing appointment on compassionate ground after delay of 15-16 years would be in the teeth of the scope and intent to provide appointment on compassionate ground. 27. If the dispute would have been referred before the learned Tribunal by the appropriate government by passing an order, then the learned Tribunal on the basis of the settled position of law that providing appointment on compassionate ground after delay of 15-16 years would be in the teeth of the scope and intent to provide appointment on compassionate ground. 27. Therefore, if the dispute has not been referred before the learned Tribunal which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error otherwise the reference would be said to be a futile exercise in formalities when the result is already known. 28. The learned Single Judge has also considered the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which also, in our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error reason being that when the family can survive for such a long period from when the death took place, hence, there is no reason to provide appointment on compassionate ground by way of an alternative source to get an appointment. Rather, if the family has been able to survive for such a long period, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided. 29. Moreover, as of now, the death occurred 30 years back, i.e. on, 23.06.1995, hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon (supra) wherein even after 9 years the appointment has been denied on the compassionate ground then what to say about providing appointment on compassionate ground after 30 years of the death of the deceased employee. 30. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in W.P(L) No.2353 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error and, as such, it needs no interference. 31. The aforesaid issue has been answered accordingly. 32. In the result, the instant appeal stands dismissed and disposed of as such. 33. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.