JUDGMENT (Per: Sri S.K. Mishra) 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kaparuwan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this intra court appeal, the petitioner–appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, giving directions to the respondents i.e. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BHEL for brevity) to employ the petitioner and absorbed him in future as and when vacancy arises. 3. The petitioner was inducted as a contract labourer on 15.08.1981. On 01.06.1989, the petitioner was retrenched by the respondents. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the State Government under Section 4-k of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. After receipt of the aforesaid reference, the dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 120 of 1993 before the learned Labour Court, Dehradun. During the trial of the aforesaid adjudication case, a settlement was arrived on 23.07.1993 between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent authorities. It was agreed between them that the respondents i.e. employers shall induct the petitioner under labour contract system with effect from the date of his joining with the contractor concerned and will given code number for the same. It was also provided that he will be considered for absorption in BHEL, Haridwar, along with such other workmen, whenever next interviews are held for this purpose irrespective of the prescribed age limit. It is appropriate to take note of the terms of settlement, which is quoted below:- “Terms of Settlement. 1. That the employer afore-named (as mentioned in this order of reference) in view of the discussions and the consent given by the workman concerned and his authorized representative without going into the merit of the case, have decided to engage the workman concerned under contract labour system with effect from the date of his joining with the Contractor concerned and he will be given a code number for the same. He will not be entitled or will not claim any benefit, whatsoever, for his past services rendered to Ranipur-Delhi Public School Society, Ranipur, Hardwar. He shall also have no claim for regular appointment in BHEL .However, he will be considered for absorption in BHEL (HEEP) Haridwar, alongwith such other workmen, whenever next interviews are held for this purposes irrespective of the prescribed age limit. 2. He shall also have no claim for regular appointment in BHEL .However, he will be considered for absorption in BHEL (HEEP) Haridwar, alongwith such other workmen, whenever next interviews are held for this purposes irrespective of the prescribed age limit. 2. That the workmen shall report for duty within 10 days from date of signing this settlement and presenting it before the Labour Court, Dehradun. On his joining the duties he will be paid the minimum wages as prescribed under law and payable to Unskilled Workers/category under the Contract Labour System. 3. That if the workman does not report for duty within the time stipulated in the clause 2 above, he shall be treated to be not interested in employment and would be deemed to have abandoned the offer of service with the contractor concerned. 4. That this fully and finally resolves all the disputes between the parties pending till date and the workman undertakes to withdraw all suits, petitions or claims or actions filed by him or on his behalf before any Court or authority including Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1434 of 1991/review application, if any, filed by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and he will not pursue the C.B. Case No. 2(H)/91 filed by BHEL Mazdoor Union before the Conciliation Officer, Hardwar and would withdraw/not press the same if it is referred for Adjudication in future." 4. Thereafter, a writ application was filed on the allegation that even though some persons junior to the petitioner has been regularized in service. The petitioner was not given the opportunity to serve the company as a regular employee. The writ application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, giving direction to the Management to absorb the petitioner in terms of the compromise entered into by them (quoted above). 5. However, the further grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such directions he has not been given any appointment though his junior has been given appointment during the pendency of the appeal. Several affidavits have been filed by the parties and the relevant affidavit is the affidavit dated 31.12.2019. The relevant paragraphs are 19 and 20. We consider it expedient to quote the same as under:- “19. Several affidavits have been filed by the parties and the relevant affidavit is the affidavit dated 31.12.2019. The relevant paragraphs are 19 and 20. We consider it expedient to quote the same as under:- “19. That coming to the list of 9 people above the appellant as on 09.09.2013, the deponent is submitting the status of all the 10 persons, including the appellant in the table below:- Sl. No. Name Year of Joining Present Status 1. Nasib Lal 28.05.1975 Yet to be absorbed 2. Latoor 15.04.1976 Reached the age of super annuation on 20.04.2018 without getting absorbed. 3. Attar Singh 01.07.1978 Reached the age of super annuation on 12.02.2019 without getting absorbed. 4. Kishan Pal 15.10.1981 Yet to be absorbed 5. Vinod Kumar 19.05.1985 Yet to be absorbed 6. Om Singh 15.04.1984 Yet to be absorbed 7. Ramesh Chand 28.10.1984 Yet to be absorbed 8. Som Nath 15.01.1985 Yet to be absorbed 9. Smt. Pushpa Devi 15.09.1990 Expired on 05.01.2016 10. Aryaveer Singh 27.07.1993 Reached the age of super annuation 05.09.2019 without getting absorbed. 20. That coming to the clarification as to how Shri Mangrey, Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Ram Prit were regularised though they were not in the list of 9 persons mentioned above, it is submitted that they were absorbed in the year 1994 based on process conducted during 1993. This was the reason why they were not mentioned in the list of 10 persons referred to in the order dated 09.09.2013 in writ petition number 1153 of 2012 (S/S) wherein the appellant was found at Sl. No. 10. A table indicating the date of joining and date of absorption of Shri Mangre, Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Ram Prit is as under:- Sl. No. Name Year of Joining  through Contractor Date of offer letter Date of joining 1. Shri Mangre 1979 31.12.1993 18.01.1994 2. Shri Anil Kumar 1982 31.12.1993 20.01.1994 3. Shri Ram Prit 1984 31.12.1993 02.02.1994 Copy of the joining submitted by Shri Mangrey, Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Ram Prit is being filed as Annexure No. SCA-7." 6. Mr. No. Name Year of Joining  through Contractor Date of offer letter Date of joining 1. Shri Mangre 1979 31.12.1993 18.01.1994 2. Shri Anil Kumar 1982 31.12.1993 20.01.1994 3. Shri Ram Prit 1984 31.12.1993 02.02.1994 Copy of the joining submitted by Shri Mangrey, Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Ram Prit is being filed as Annexure No. SCA-7." 6. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned senior counsel for the BHEL very strenuously and emphatically argued that the petitioner given appointment on 27.07.1993, which is on the face of the record is erroneous, as it is apparent from the records that petitioner has got employment as a daily wager on 15.08.1981 and after initiation of the dispute i.e. Adjudication Case No. 120 of 1993 before the learned Labour Court, Dehraradun, a compromise was entered on 23.07.1993, wherein the petitioner was also a party in the adjudication case. So, we failed to understand if the petitioner was a party in the adjudication case no. 120 of 1990, how he was given appointment on 27.09.1993 which is admittedly three years after entering into settlement. Thus, it is apparent that learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the BHEL have not come to the Court with clean hands but it is admitted that present petitioner has attained his age of superannuation is 05.09.2019. 7. In that view of the matter we are unable to pass the order of absorbing the petitioner as an employee but he is entitled for some cash compensation. Therefore, we are inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner in view of the services he was not given and persons who were younger to him, namely, Vinod Kumar, Om Singh, Somnath, Ramesh Chand and Smt. Pushpa Devi have been regularized in services. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner within period of 45 days, hence. If the BHEL do not pay amount within a stipulated time then it will carry penal interest @8% from the date of filing of the appeal. The W.P. is accordingly allowed. 8. Urgent certified copy of the order be provided as per rules.