GOSWAMI, J. : This application under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, to whom the following issues were re­ferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dis­putes Act for adjudication:- 1. (a) Whether the Management of Nam-burnadi T.E. is justified in changing the pension scheme which provided for life pension to re­tired employees? (b) If not, whether Sri H. C. Kanwar, who had retired and given pension for 5 years is entitled to life pension? (2) Briefly it appears that Sri H. C. Kan-war had put in about 36 years of service under the Company and retired on 31st December, 1958. He was granted by the Company a pen­sion of Rs. 93.95 per month for five years and Rs. 3,000 as commutation pension. It is stated that prior to Sri Kanwar's retirement, the Com­pany's Managing Agents, Messrs. Shaw Wallace & Company, Ltd., relinquished their office and »the management devolved on the Board of Directors of the Company who are continuing since then. It is also not denied that the em­ployees were getting their salaries, allowances and enjoying other facilities as before. It is not pleaded by the management that the condi­tions of service of the existing staff on the date of transfer had changed on account of the change of Managing Agency. That being the position, the point that arises for consideration is whether there is any scheme in force in the Company for payment of pension to its emplo­yees on retirement. (3) This question about the existence of a scheme had to be considered in the light of the oral and documentary evidence which was led before the Labour Court and the conclusion arrived at by the Court would be a finding of fact. The Labour Court after examining the evidence of the witnesses for the management as well as for the workmen and considering the documents produced, particularly Annexures G and K to the petition, being the two circulars dated 14th July, 1947 and 10th June, 1950, respectively, issued by Messrs. Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd., came to the conclusion that there was a scheme of pension in operation at the time of transfer. Annexure G is the original scheme of the Company and by Annexure K the same was modified to a certain extent. Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd., came to the conclusion that there was a scheme of pension in operation at the time of transfer. Annexure G is the original scheme of the Company and by Annexure K the same was modified to a certain extent. This finding of fact about the existence of the scheme cannot be interfered with in an appli­cation under Article 226 of the Constitution. That being the position, Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the management, contended that once the employee has accepted the pension, he is estopped from questioning the same before the Court. Unfortunately, however, the emplo­yees who are pitched against the management are not in an equal position in bargaining. It is, therefore, open to the union, who takes up the cause of the employees to raise the dispute by way of collective bargaining on their behalf. No question of estoppel arises in a case of this description. The argument does not appear to have been raised even before the Court below. In our considered opinion, this submission has no substance. (4) Next, therefore, remains the question whether on the schemes which are now before the Court, namely, Annexures 'G' and 'K', one can safely conclude that there was a pension scheme for life. Mr. Ghose contends that there is no mention in any of these schemes that the pension was available for life. He contends that a grant of pension was a matter of discre­tion for the Company and this has been men­tioned even in Annexure 'G' dated 14th July, 1947. We are not satisfied that after the modi­fied scheme has been put in operation in 195C there was anything left with the management to refuse pension as a condition of service to the retired employees in the Company. After the scheme has been brought into force, it was no longer a matter of bounty and the scheme has to be enforced. There is nothing in the scheme to indicate that the pension was to be allowed for a limited period. (5) Mr. Ghose relies on the clause in An­nexure 'K', which may be set out below:- " Pensions and gratuities will be granted on the following basis from 1st June 1950 sub­ject to the deduction in all cases of the amount standing to the credit of the employees' Provi­dent Fund 'B' accounts:- "1. (5) Mr. Ghose relies on the clause in An­nexure 'K', which may be set out below:- " Pensions and gratuities will be granted on the following basis from 1st June 1950 sub­ject to the deduction in all cases of the amount standing to the credit of the employees' Provi­dent Fund 'B' accounts:- "1. A man who reached the age of 55 and completes 30 years' continuous service and re­tires with the Company's consent will receive a pension based on half his basic pay at the time of retirement and a 10 years' expectation of life. Dearness allowance will be paid on the pension at the rate applicable from time to time for serving members of the Garden staffs." There is an illustration under paragraph 5 of this document, which may be usefully quoted:- "An example of the calculation of a pension under the revised rules is given below:- Basic salary-Rs. 220 per month-33 years' service. Half pay-Rs. 110 per month. Allowing for provident fund 'B' account and working on a 10 years' basis- Rs. Rs. 110 per month for 10 years . . 13,200 Less Provident Fund 'B' Account. 1,200 Balance 12,000 Basic pension over 10 years . . 100 (per month) If 25 per cent commutation allowed: Lump-sum payment (25 per cent of Rs. 12,000)...... 3,000 Rs. 75 per month." This is only a hypothetical illustration, but it would go to show that the period of ten years mentioned in this clause is only for the purpose of calculation and commutation of pension. From this it cannot be argued that there was a limit of time regarding the pension, which was made available to the employees on their re­tirement. We see nothing in Exts. 'G' and 'K' to limit the pension to a period of time, either 5 years or 10 years, or even according to the discretion of the management, once the emplo­yees are held to be entitled to a pension. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention either. (6) We have no hesitation in holding that the Labour Court's award is justified on the evidence and we cannot interfere with the same in exercise of our powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed, but in I he circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.