JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The short facts of the case appear to be that the father of the respondent, Shri Nathabhai V. Sangada, who was working with the petitioner Corporation as a Mechanic had passed away on 18.3.1981 while on duty. At that time, the respondent was minor and his birth date is 1.6.1975. Upon attaining the majority, the respondent made application to the petitioner Corporation for offering compassionate appointment on the ground of the death of his father. However, the said application was rejected by the Corporation on 22nd September, 1994. The respondent raised dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act' for short) and then the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal ultimately passed the award on 30.4.1998, whereby the benefit is granted for compassionate appointment to the respondent from the date on which he attained the majority and the salary is also ordered to be paid as if he was working on the post of peon. It is under these circumstances, the respondent Corporation has approached this Court by the present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Gajendra Singh for Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation and Mr.Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. It is undisputed position that the settlement, was entered into between the petitioner Corporation and its employee. As per Clause No.30 of the settlement, within period of 10 years from the death of the employee the majority is to be attained by the dependent member for compassionate appointment and within one year the application is to be made, so total 11 years. The language used is 'maximum', therefore, the same could be said as the outer limit for consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. It is also an undisputed position that the respondent did not attain majority within the period of 10 years from the date of death of his father, nor did he make the application within the period of 11 years. The period of 11 years would expire on 17.3.1992, whereas the respondent has attained majority on 1.6.1993, since his birth date is 1.6.1975. Under these circumstances, the compassionate appointment was denied to the respondent by the petitioner Corporation. 4. The period of 11 years would expire on 17.3.1992, whereas the respondent has attained majority on 1.6.1993, since his birth date is 1.6.1975. Under these circumstances, the compassionate appointment was denied to the respondent by the petitioner Corporation. 4. If the award of the Industrial Tribunal is considered in light of the aforesaid, it appears that the Industrial Tribunal has relied upon the Circular No.361/1973 and the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2951 of 1991 in the case of Jaydeepsinh Chatursinh Solanki v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and has held that the time limit should not be considered by way of strict compliance and the relaxation should be permitted. Circular No.361/1973 can hardly be pressed as against the binding settlement between the Corporation and its employee, commencing from 1.8.1987. Therefore, the settlement would supersede the instructions, if any, contrary therewith. If the settlement provides for maximum period of 11 years, the case could not have been considered beyond the said period, therefore, it could be said that the Tribunal has committed error to that extent apparent on the face of record. 5. The copy of the decision of this Court in SCA No.2951 of 1991 is not produced on record, but even if it is considered that this Court, in the said decision, observed for consideration of the application by making relaxation in the time limit prescribed, the same cannot be now considered as a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162 and more particularly the observations made at paragraph 7 of the said decision, which reads as under:- "7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." (emphasis supplied) 6. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." (emphasis supplied) 6. If the condition for compassionate appointment in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is read as an exception to the public employment, the condition is required to be strictly complied with and if the strict compliance of the condition is to be observed, the application of the respondent was barred, and could be considered within the maximum period of 11 years only, but the respondent did not attain majority, during the said period. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained on the aforesaid both the counts. Further, the apparent error committed by the Tribunal is to offer appointment with the retrospective date, which is ex facie impermissible. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute.