ORDER : 1. Aggrieved of order dated 21.11.2012 whereby, the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was deprived of claim of back wages for the period between 27.04.2012 to 21.11.2012, the petitioner approached the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 6247 of 2013 which was dismissed on 22.06.2015 giving him a cause to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. Pratiush Lala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Form-H dated 05.11.2012 submits that the said Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the petitioner under duress as the petitioner was compelled to sign on dotted lines. It is contended that once the respondent-BCCL accepted the claim of the petitioner in respect of his date of birth as 14.01.1957 and accordingly, permitted him to join duty on 22.11.2012, the petitioner cannot be denied salary for the period from 27.04.2012 to 21.11.2012 on the ground of the said period being idle period. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the Memorandum of Agreement dated 05.11.2012 contending that the terms and conditions therein were imposed arbitrarily however, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the said settlement dated 05.11.2012. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL submits that the settlement arrived at between the parties is binding upon the parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has been denied back wages for the idle period which occurred on account of bona-fide dispute in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. In absence of protest by the petitioner to the settlement arrived at between the parties which is witnessed by two independent witnesses, the petitioner cannot resile from the terms and conditions under the settlement. Moreover, challenge to settlement dated 05.11.2012 on the ground of undue influence, coercion or fraud can be adjudicated before the Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same would require adjudication of disputed questions of fact. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. At the time when the settlement dated 05.11.2012 was signed by the petitioner, respondent-BCCL was in bargaining and dominating position being employer whereas, the petitioner had no other option but to sign the said settlement dated 05.11.2012. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding indicate that the petitioner was issued superannuation notice dated 27.04.2012 whereby, he was intimated that he would attain the age of 60 years on 14.01.2012 and accordingly, he would stand superannuated from company's service w.e.f 01.02.2012. It is not in dispute now, that the petitioner was appointed on 15.10.1982 and at that time his date of birth was recorded in Form-B Register as 14.01.1957. The petitioner immediately protested to the respondent-BCCL to the said superannuation notice dated 27.04.2012 by issuing legal notice dated 28.05.2012. He submitted necessary documents to show that his date of birth is 14.01.1957. It appears that besides Form-B Register, C.M.P.F Register and Nominee Form of the petitioner also disclose that when he was appointed his date of birth was recorded as 14.01.1957. Respondent-BCCL accepted the claim of the petitioner and permitted him to join his duty w.e.f 22.11.2012. However, a Memorandum of Settlement was signed in Form-H on 05.11.2012 with the following terms and conditions:- “1. That, the DOB of Shri Hari B.P. will be accepted for recording in all the statutory registers of the Colliery as 14.01.1957 (Fourteen January Nineteen hundred fifty Seven). 2. That Sri B.P. will be allowed to resume his duty with immediate effect without back wages for the period he was idle i.e. date of superannuation to resumption of duty. 3. That the entire period of his idleness will be treated as dies-non, but it will be treated as continuous service for the purpose of calculation of gratuity only. 4. That, Shri B.P. will never claim for any wages for the period idleness at any point of time in future before any forum. 5. That, the pension amount due for the above idle period shall be deposited by the employee himself.” 7. Subsequently, the Project Officer, A.K.W.M. Colliery issued office order dated 21.11.2012 permitting the petitioner to resume his duty on the aforesaid terms and conditions. 8. 5. That, the pension amount due for the above idle period shall be deposited by the employee himself.” 7. Subsequently, the Project Officer, A.K.W.M. Colliery issued office order dated 21.11.2012 permitting the petitioner to resume his duty on the aforesaid terms and conditions. 8. Order dated 10/11.10.2012 which reflects decision of the Competent Authority to accept date of birth of the petitioner as 14.01.1957 indicates that the date of birth recorded in old Form-B Register has been accepted by respondent-BCCL as correct date of birth of the petitioner. It appears that in the NEIS instead of 14.01.1957, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 14.01.1952. The acceptance of the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.01.1957 by the Competent Authority is an admission on the part of respondent-BCCL that in the NEIS wrong date of birth of the petitioner was recorded, for which fault lies with the respondents. Consequently, superannuation notice dated 27.04.2012 must be held to be illegal and arbitrary. The plea taken by the respondent-BCCL that challenge to Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.2012 on the ground of undue influence, coercion and fraud can be adjudicated in a Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not sustain in view of its own admission as reflected in order dated 10/11.10.2012 which discloses that in old Form-B Register the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 14.01.1957 and the Competent Authority accepted the same as correct date of birth of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 9. The plea taken by the respondents that the dispute was amicably resolved by signing the Memorandum of Settlement on 05.11.2012 is de-hors the principle of fairness in action. The respondent-BCCL has itself decided the terms and conditions which formed part of the Agreement in Form-H as one finds from the order dated 10/11.10.2012 itself. The respondent-authority had infact, already decided the terms and conditions on which the petitioner was to join duty. However, the petitioner threw challenge to Form-H without any waste of time stating that the conditions incorporated therein were arbitrary. It appears that the learned Single Judge while testing the legality of order dated 21.11.2012 in the context of Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.2012 overlooked order dated 10/11.10.2012, which definitely changes the entire complexion of the case as portraited by the respondent-BCCL. It appears that the learned Single Judge while testing the legality of order dated 21.11.2012 in the context of Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.2012 overlooked order dated 10/11.10.2012, which definitely changes the entire complexion of the case as portraited by the respondent-BCCL. Noticing order dated 10/11.10.2012, in the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H signed on 05.11.2012 cannot be given effect. Consequently, order dated 21.11.2012 which has been passed on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.2012 is also liable to be quashed. In the result, order dated 21.11.2012 is quashed. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed and in turn W.P. (S) No. 6247/2013 as prayed for. The petitioner is held entitled for the back wages for the period between 27.04.2012 to 21.11.2012. 10. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.