The principle of estoppel and res judicata have application in the field of industrial law, and a workman is estopped from raising a dispute regarding his age after having accepted the entry in the service card for several years and failing to object within the time limits specified in the settlement.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the Employer for quashing of the award dated January 29, 1993 given in Adjudication Case No. 174/1989 of Labour Court (III) Kanpur. Lal Mohammad, the workman concerned died on November 3, 1991 during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings before the Labour Court, but no one was substituted in his place. His son Mohd. Farooq, however, filed a caveat in the writ petition and also a counter affidavit, though no application was formally moved by him for being impleaded as a party. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for Mohd. Farooq and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

( 2 ) THE workman, Lal Mohammad was employed in the Cooper Alien Branch of the British India corporation Ltd. on August 29, 1961 and in the Service Card his year of birth was noted as 1928. The age of retirement of the workman in the petitioners establishment is Sixty years. The workman gave an application on November 9, 1987 for correction of his date of birth. In accordance with the provisions of an earlier settlement, a Medical Board was constituted for determining the age of the workman and after medical examination the Board confirmed that Lal mohammad would attain the age of sixty years on June 30, 1988. He was accordingly served an office memo informing him that he would retire from service on June 30, 1988 and he was advised to collect his other dues from the office of the Corporation. At the instance of the workman, State Government by its order dated October 23, 1989 made a reference to the Labour court (III) Kanpur under Section 4-K U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was as to whether the removal from service of Lal Mohammad w. e. f. July 1, 1988 was valid/legal and if not, what benefits the workman was entitled to get. The Labour Court held that the workman was born in the year 1931 and therefore, he was entitled to continue in service up to June 30, 1991 and it accordingly gave an award that the concerned workman was entitled to get wages and all other benefits for the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1991.

( 3 ) SRI Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is completely perverse in as much as it has failed to consider the evidence adducel by the employer and also the effect of the earlier settlement regarding the procedure which was to be adopted by a workman who disputed the date of birth as recorded in the service card. Learned Counsel has further urged that the Labour Court has erred in relying upon evidence adduced by the workman which was neither admissible nor had been proved in accordance with law and it had also erred in making observation that there was some interpolation in the year of birth as recorded in the service card when in fact there was no such interpolation. Sri K. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of Mohd. Farooq (son of Lal Mohammed workman) has urged that the principle of estoppel or res judicata have no application in the field of industrial law and it was open to a workman to raise any dispute and if the State Government was satisfied about the existence of a dispute, it can refer it for adjudication to the Labour Court. He has also submitted that the Labour Court is not bound by any earlier settlement and it was open to it not to rely upon the evidence adduced by the employer and to place reliance upon the Provident Fund Record which had been adduced on behalf of the workman. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1949 FC 111. Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, (1950-LLJ-921 ). According to learned counsel in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N. S. Moni, (1976-I-LLJ-478) the retirement of the workman on June 30, 1988 amounted to termination of his ser