JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - The petitioner-management has preferred this writ application challenging the schedule of reference, which has been registered as I.D. Case No. 3 of 2012 before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 2. The present opposite party No. 2-workman was appointed as Sub-Editor under the management M/s. "The Samaja" on 28.10.1976. On attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years of age, he retired from service on 03.12.2009. He received all the post-retiral benefits, he is legally entitled to. Under the petitioner-management, none of the employees (Journalist, non-Journalist) were/are continuing in service after the age of 58 years. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2-workman, on attaining the age of 58 years, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and never approached nor raised nay dispute regarding his continuation in service for quite some time, but subsequently, he approached the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Cuttack claiming his continuance in service till he attains 60 years of age. On failure of conciliation, learned Conciliation Officer-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, vide his Letter No. 3936 dated 30.06.2011, submitted the conciliation failure report to the appropriate Govt. The appropriate Govt., on consideration of the matter, made the following reference:- Whether the termination of service of Sri Debaprasad Mishra, News Editor by the Management of M/s. "The Samaja" with effect from 03.12.2009 before attaining the age of 60 years is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief Sri Mishra is entitled to? 3. On the basis of reference, I.D. Case No. 3 of 2012 was initiated before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. In the said case, the management entered appearance and filed it's written statement on 12.09.2013. The pleadings before the Tribunal being complete, the case is otherwise ready for trial. At this stage, the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the reference on the following grounds:- (I) The claim of the opposite party No. 2 for re-appointment and payment of back wages from the date of his retirement has been rejected by the Conciliation Officer as unjustified and unreasonable as found from Annexure-2, i.e., the conciliation failure report; (II) Opposite party No. 2 upon retirement having received all his post-retirement benefits could not have approached the Conciliation Officer complaining illegal termination of his services by the management with effect from 03.12.2009 after lapse of one year of his retirement. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that Annexure-2, i.e., the conciliation failure report filed along with the writ application is an incomplete document. In fact, the concluding part of the conciliation failure report filed vide Annexure-A/2 to the Preliminary Counter Affidavit has been suppressed by the management. In the said report vide Annexure-A/2, the Conciliation Officer has taken into consideration the case of the co-workers of the petitioner like Anand Kumar Pani, Prafulla Pattnaik, Prabir Sarkar, Shyamakanta Pattnaik and Umaprasad Mishra, who have been allowed to work till 60 years of age after their retirement at the age of 58 years, but the opposite party No. 2 has been discriminated by the management. Further, the Conciliation Officer has referred to I.D. Case No. 21 of 1997 disposed of by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar between the management of M/s. "The Samaja" and their workmen on the self-same question of fact claiming service upto the age of 60 years and the aforesaid Industrial Dispute Case No. 21 of 1997 was allowed by the learned Tribunal and it's order was confirmed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1001 of 1989. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that receipt of retirement benefit by the petitioner does not estoppel him from exercising his legal right as guaranteed by the Industrial Dispute Act. 5. On comparison of Annexure-2 filed along with the writ application and Annexure-A/2 filed along with the Preliminary counter affidavit, it is found that Annexure-2 is an incomplete document. From Annexure-A/2, it is found that, while submitting the conciliation failure report, learned Conciliation Officer has taken into consideration the case of the co-workers of the petitioner, who are similarly circumstanced with him. They are Anand Kumar Pani, Prafulla Pattnaik, Prabir Sarkar, Shyamakanta Pattnaik and Umaprasad Mishra. The I.D. Case No. 21 of 1997, award passed in which, was confirmed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1001 of 1989 was regarding extension of service of one Banchhanidhi Das, Ex-Asst. Editor of M/s. "The Samaja" after 58 years of age. In the aforesaid case, this Court pronounced its judgment on 10.08.1990 in favour of the workman. On the basis of all such facts, the Conciliation Officer felt inclined to refer the dispute formulating the term of reference as above. The appropriate Govt. Editor of M/s. "The Samaja" after 58 years of age. In the aforesaid case, this Court pronounced its judgment on 10.08.1990 in favour of the workman. On the basis of all such facts, the Conciliation Officer felt inclined to refer the dispute formulating the term of reference as above. The appropriate Govt. accepted the conciliation failure report and made reference U/s. 12(5) read with Section-10 of the I.D. Act to the Industrial Tribunal in accordance with the terms of reference suggested by the Conciliation Officer. 6. Recommendation of the Wage Board for working Journalists U/s. 10 of the Working Journalists (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 in Clause-4.34 provides thus:- "The age of retirement of a working journalist shall be 58 years. However a Working Journalist shall be continued in service upto the age of 60 years on production of fitness certificate from the District Medical Officer." 7. From the above recommendation of the Wage Board, it is clear that 58 years of age is the age of retirement of a working Journalist, but the word 'shall' in Clause-4.34 in the second sentence makes the provision mandatory and a working Journalist shall continue in service upto the age of 60 years on production of Fitness Certificate from the District Medical Officer. Such a provision, though cannot be interpreted to mean that age of retirement is 60 years, it can be interpreted to mean that a working Journalist shall continue in service till he attains 60 years of age on fulfillment of certain conditions, i.e., production of Medical Certificate from the District Medical Officer regarding his fitness. 8. In the present case, the opposite party No. 2 had approached the management on 06.11.2009 before his retirement on 03.12.2009 requesting the management for his continuance in service till he attains 60 years of age. In spite of the recommendation of the Wage Board, the management having sat over the matter, the opposite party No. 2?workman has rightly initiated the action under the Industrial Disputes Act. Whether the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years amounts to termination or not? Whether he was entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age or whether he is entitled to any benefit or financial relief, are all questions incidental to the term of reference. Whether the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years amounts to termination or not? Whether he was entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age or whether he is entitled to any benefit or financial relief, are all questions incidental to the term of reference. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reference and I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 9. Whether the workman could have approached the conciliation machinery after receipt of all his post-retiral benefits, is a question which is no more res integra. The workman has a legal right to approach the machineries under the Industrial Disputes Act, even after receipt of post-retiral benefits because there is no estoppel against the Statute and a person cannot be held to have bartered his legal right for any payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, though in different context, have taken the same view in the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others, and Shyam Sundar Rout Vs. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and Others, . 10. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed