JUDGMENT 1. By Court.--Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 70 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, heard on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant on merit submitted that in view of the Bipartite Settlement, the appellant was required to give appointment to the genuine persons and in view of the conditions of the Bipartite Settlement, the contractor was required to give the identity of the persons and after verification of that identity only, the workmen could have been given appointment. In the case of the present workmen, the contractor disputed the genuiness of the claim of the workmen and questioned the identity of the persons and, therefore, they were not absorbed. In that situation, there was no fault on the part of the appellant in not absorbing the workmen. It is also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 31.8.2006 also awarded the back wages irrespective of the fact that the appellant could have given the employment only if the claim of the workmen would have been forwarded by the contractor but the Industrial Tribunal did not consider even the fact that the workmen did not work any time in the employment of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that highhandedly and absolutely on frivolous grounds the absorption was denied to the workmen in spite of the Bipartite Settlement and, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the respondent-workmen and they did not work because work was not taken by the appellant from the workmen. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is true that there was a dispute and because of that reason the appointment was not given to the respondent workmen by the appellant but that was subject matter of dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and when question of identity was raised, it was required to be decided by a third party Le. Industrial Tribunal in accordance with law in the present case. Industrial Tribunal in accordance with law in the present case. Therefore, if the Industrial Tribunal has recorded its finding on fact that the workmen were entitled to absorption in view of the Bipartite Settlement then there is no illegality in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 7. So far as award of back wages is concerned it is settled law that it is not automatic and particularly in a case of absorption and since 1993 the respondent workmen did not work and they were not in employment of the appellant. The Award was passed on 31.8.2006 and from that day the appellant could not have denied the absorption merely on the ground of filing of the writ petition before this Court and. therefore, the workmen have been denied the work by the appellant even after the Award dated 31.8.2006. Therefore, in view of the fact that respondent-workmen have not pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that they were not in gainful employment since 1993 to 31.8.2006, therefore, the Award of back wages for the period aforesaid is liable to be set aside. However, the respondent-workmen shall be entitled to absorption in service with back wages from 31.8.2006. The appellant is directed to pass appropriate order of absorption of the respondent workmen within a period of two weeks from today and take them on duty. 8. With this modification in the impugned Award, this L.P.A. is allowed partly, as mentioned above. Application allowed.