JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Labour Court, directing the petitioner to appoint the workers as seasonal workmen in the petitioner’s sugar factory. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the workers raised an industrial dispute with regard to their non-appointment and contended that the company had entered into various settlements with the union from time to time, wherein, the heirs of the deceased employees as well as the sons of the retired employees were to be given appointments in the sugar factory. On the basis of these settlements, the workers contended that they have a right for appointment, upon the retirement of their father, in the services of the company, and that, the settlement which has the force of law is liable to be enforced and that the Labour Court was liable to issue an award directing the employers to give an appointment letter. The claim of the opposite party was resisted. The employers contended that there is no such binding settlement upon the employers to give appointments to the sons of the retired employees, and that, in any case, such a settlement, if any, is opposed to public policy. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, gave an award directing the employers to appoint the workers as seasonal employees. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition which was entertained and the entire award was stayed by an interim order of this Court. 2. Heard Shri R.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Rai, the learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. At the outset, it was also urged that the petitioner’s company has been taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, and consequently, the said award cannot be enforced upon the new management, which is said to have its own rules and regulations of appointment in various sugar factories of the Corporation. The petitioner has annexed various settlements that had been entered into with the union and the former employees from time to time. A perusal of all these settlements indicates that the management was to give due consideration to the sons of the deceased employees and retired employees for suitable employment. The petitioner has annexed various settlements that had been entered into with the union and the former employees from time to time. A perusal of all these settlements indicates that the management was to give due consideration to the sons of the deceased employees and retired employees for suitable employment. In one settlement, it was stated that the sons of the retired workmen would also be considered on merit for employment. In another settlement, it was stated that the employment to the sons of the retired workers would be given a preferential right, and yet in another settlement, it was stated that the appointments would be given on the basis of their suitability. 4. In the light of these settlements, it cannot be said that the management had agreed to give appointments on the ground that an employee had retired, and therefore, his son was liable to be given appointment. 5. The law gives greater sanctity to a settlement than it gives to an award. The settlement becomes a benefit and becomes a part of the service conditions. It becomes a part of contract. The aforesaid settlements, which have been arrived at, only creates a lis between the parties to the effect that subject to suitability, the workers would be given an employment, but it does not mean that in every case, the workers would be entitled for employment as a matter of right. It cannot be said that whenever an employee retires, his son would automatically be given an appointment. Such condition would be void and opposed to public policy and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the Labour Court misinterpreted the settlements that were earlier arrived at between the employer and the union. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the award cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ————