Order The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay all the arrears of wages for the period from 21.1.2005 to 31.8.2005 during which period he was terminated from the services allegedly in the garb of superannuation. He has further prayed for a relief to direct the respondents to pay the entire back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The main controversy in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the entire arrears and consequential benefits of the services in view of the settlement dated 26.8.2005 arrived at in between the parties. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner's date of birth was treated as 14.10.1944 by the employer and he was allowed to superannuate w.e.f. 1.4.2004. The matter was referred to the Head Quarter as to whether his date of birth was 14.2.1944 or it was 14.4.1948. Ultimately, the Head Quarter's committee decided the matter that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1.4.4.1948. Thereafter, an agreement/settlement dated 26.8.2005 was are rived at in between the Management and the workman in which the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties with immediate effect and a condition was put that the petitioner shall not be paid any back wages for the idle period and the period of idleness shall be treated as dies non. However, continuation of the service shall be treated for the purpose of gratuity only. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said clause that he shall not be paid the back wages, preferred this writ petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement is against the law. He contended that the petitioner's signature was obtained on the settlement/agreement under the coercion of the authority-employer that he will be allowed to resume the duty in case his back wages are dispensed with. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and stated that the agreement was a statutory agreement and the petitioner cannot resile from the said settlement. 5. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Acts, 1947 permits the workman and the Management to settle the matter among themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner further tried to emphasize that the contract is void. Any contract arrived at in between the parties by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation of fact, is voidable under the Contract Act. 6. 5. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Acts, 1947 permits the workman and the Management to settle the matter among themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner further tried to emphasize that the contract is void. Any contract arrived at in between the parties by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation of fact, is voidable under the Contract Act. 6. The settlement arrived at in between the parties is the statutory settlement and if it is challenged on the ground of coercion, the parties will have to adduce evidences. It is a disputed question of fact which is to be decided by the competent Court i.e. the Industrial Tribunal. 7. In view of the above, I find that the matter is within the purview of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition is not maintainable as the other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. 8. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of the law in accordance with law.