WP(C) 270/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by t he Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Central Office, district Dibrugarh representing Sri B.N. Tiwari, a purported workman of the respondent-Tea Estate, who during t he pendency of the writ petition died on 30.10.2005. After more than 5 years of such expiry of the workman, an application being Misc. Case No.1161/2011 has be en filed on 8.4.2011 seeking substitution of workman by his wife and minor son n amely, Smti. Purnima Tiwari and Sri Pranjit Tiwari. However, the said applicati on is not supported by any prayer for setting aside the abatement, which has ari sen due to the death of the workman. There is no separate application for settin g aside the abatement. It is in the aforesaid context, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tea Estate, at t he very outset, has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the death of workman. He further submits that even on merit also, the writ petit ion does not disclose any ground and thus, liable to be dismissed upholding the impugned award dated 19.12.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.15/1998. On the other hand, Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the peti tioner submits that leaving aside the technical plea of the writ petition being abated, the same is required to be adjudicated upon on merit. She submits that t he whole basis of the impugned award being Ext.18, an affidavit sworn by Mr. D. B. Sengupta, who was the purported owner of the truck bearing registration No.WM K-8579 of which the workman was the driver, the impugned award is liable to be s et aside and quashed. She submits that Ext.18-affidavit having not been proved i n a manner in which an affidavit is required to be proved, the emphasis placed b y the learned Presiding Officer on the said affidavit (Ext.18) is misplaced and consequently, the impugned award is liable to be interferred with. The present writ petition has arisen out of the aforesaid award dated 19.12.2001 passed in Reference Case No.15/1998, by which the particular reference has been answered against the workman, but in favour of the respondent-Tea Estate. For a ready reference, the reference is reproduced below :- 1.(a)Whether the management of Horoocharai Tea Estate, Jorhat is justified in r efusing employment to Shri Baijnath Tiwari(driver) or not ? (b) If not, is he entitled to any other relief whatsoever ? Towards answering the aforesaid reference, the Labour Court proceeded with the m atter upon observing due formalities by way of accepting the written statement o f both the parties. The management examined 3 witnesses as MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3. On the other hand, the workman examined himself as the sole witness. The issue b efore the Labour Court was as to whether the workman Late Baijnath Tiwari was an employee of the Tea Estate and as to whether his service was dispensed with ill egally. It is in this context, the aforesaid reference was made. If we strictly go by the reference - Whether the management of Horoocharai Tea Estate, Jorhat is justified in refusing employment to Shri Baijnath Tiwari (driver) or not t hen the case with the expiry of said Shri Tiwari, the issue no longer survives. The reference was not in the context of the grievance of the workman that his s ervice was illegally dispensed with and that he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages, but the issue that was as to whether the manageme nt was justified in refusing employment to said Shri Tiwari. Learned counsel for the parties have exclusively referred to the evidence on rec ord. Although it was the stand of the workman that he was appointed in the Tea Estate by way of issuing appointment order and that he was in possession of the said appointment order, but during the proceeding, he could not produce the appo intment order. Similarly, he also could not produce the Ration Card although it was the stand in the deposition that he used to get ration as an employee of the Tea Estate. Not only that, although it was his stand that he was appointed in the Tea Estate prior to 1991, but in his deposition he himself admitted that he had applied for a job in the Tea Estate by submitting an application in 1991. Mrs. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Ext.A dated 20.1.1991, by which it was certified that the workman, a truck driv er of the Estate was allowed to go to Bihar on 20.1.1991 with the advice to rejo in duty on 22.2.1991. For a ready reference, the said exhibit is quoted below : - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Shri Baijnath Tewari, truck driver of this Estat e, allowed to go his own residence Bihar on 20th January, 1991 and advised to jo in in his duty on 22.2.91. This leave is granted to him from a due annual leave account, 1990. Sd/- Binoy Kumar Mazumdar, MANAGER Kamarbari Tea Estate. I have verified the original Ext.A, which was issued by Kamarbund Tea Es tate, issued by the Manager of Kamarbund Tea Estate. Ext.A(1) is the signature o f the said Manager. On the face of it, the said exhibit/certificate dated 20.1.1 991 pertains to another Tea Estate and not the Tea Estate with which the present proceeding is concerned. The respondent-Tea Estate is Horoocharai Tea Estate, J orhat, but on the other hand, the certificate on which the workman places relian ce was issued by another Tea Estate namely, Kamarbund Tea Estate. From the above, what is seen is that leaving aside Ext.18, referred to a bove, even otherwise also, the workman miserably failed to establish his case th at he was in the Employment Roll of the respondent-Tea Estate. It was all along the case of the respondent-Tea Estate that the workman concerned was the truck d river of a truck bearing registration No. WMK-8579 belonging to Sri D.B. Sengupt a for certain period of time. The said truck was placed at the disposal of the T ea Estate and the workman used to drive the said truck. It is on that basis, the workman claimed to be in the Employment Roll of the Tea Estate. When the servic e of the truck was dispensed with naturally, the workman had also to leave the T ea Estate. Thereafter, he made a grievance against his purported termination of service arising out of which the aforesaid reference was made. The learned Labour Court in its impugned award dated 19.12.2001 has disc ussed all the aforesaid aspects of the matter. When the workman himself failed to establish his case, the Labour Court had no other alternative than to answer the reference as indicated above. Having regard to the entire evidence on record and the reasoning furnished by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned aw ard, I see no reason for interference with the same by sitting on appeal over th e said finding and/or re-appreciating the issues. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cos ts.