( 1 ) ). Heard Mr. A. M. Dagali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. A. Vaishnav, learned advocate for respondent workman.

( 2 ) ). In the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 58/ 1997 dated 1st November, 2000, wherein the Industrial Tribunal has directed the petitioner Corporation to give compassionate appointment to one Shri Rameshbhai Mafatlal Makwana in Class III and / or IV cadre within period of one month from the date of said award. This Court has issued RULE and ad-interim relief in terms of para-8[b] has been granted on 9/07/2001. Learned advocate Mr. Dagali appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has challenged this award on the ground that there is delay in rasing the industrial dispute by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Dagali has also submitted that direction issued by the tribunal is contrary to the administrative circular issued by the petitioner Corporation from time to time granting compassionate appointment on certain conditions in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the Union and the Corporation dated 2 1/12/1989 [ Item No. 30 ]. Mr. Dagali, learned advocate further submitted that income ceiling criteria though it is specifically mentioned in the settlement, same has to be taken into consideration because the sole object for giving compassionate appointment is to meet with the hardships of the family immediately on account of the death of any employee. Therefore, income is necessary criteria to be looked into while considering the application for compassionate appointment and hence, the administrative circular issued by the petitioner Corporation must have to be taken into account and rightly considered by the petitioner Corporation while rejecting the application of the respondent. Mr. Dagali, learned advocate has also submitted that while considering the application of the respondent, other recruitment Rules are also required to be followed, in that case, as to why the administrative Circular so far it relates to the compassionate appointment should not be followed. Mr. Dagali, learned advocate has also submitted that the provisions made in the settlement to the effect that as far as vacancy available, the legal heir of the deceased employee will be absorbed or will be given appointment accordingly or to make some efforts to absorb the dependent in service. Therefore, direction which has been issued by the tribunal to appoint the respondent, is contrary to the provisions of the settlement. No other contention save and except referred above, has been raised by learned advocate Mr. Dagali on behalf of the petitioner Corporation.

( 3 ) ). Learned advocate Mr. Biren Vaishnav appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that written statement has been submitted by the petitioner before the tribunal vide Exh. 9 wherein, no such contention has been raised by the petitioner Corporation in respect of the delay aspect. Learned advocate Mr. Vaishnav has also submitted that the settlement dated 21/12/1989 is binding settlement arrived at between the Union and the Corporation under Section 12[3] of the Industrial Disputes Act and any instructions or Circular/s or administrative guidelines contrary to the settlement cannot be implemented or permitted to be implemented by the petitioner Corporation. Therefore, Mr. Vaishnav submits that the application filed by the respondent has been rejected only on the basis of the administrative instructions which is contrary to the settlement and taking into account the income criteria that mother of the respondent is working in Palanpur Civil Hospital and therefore, application of the respondent has been rejected for compassionate appointment. Mr. Vaishnav, learned advocate has also submitted that according to the settlement, the respondent is entitled to benefit of compassionate appointment irrespective of the