{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.537/2010 The Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Date of Judgment : 26.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Ashok Chhangani, for the appellants. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioners of Writ Petition No.2623/2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 19.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition and in consequence upheld the award dated 27.10.2009 passed by Labour Court. { 2 } 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellants' writ petition thereby justified in upholding the award of Labour Court dated 27.10.2009? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. 5. An industrial reference was made by State under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to Labour Court to decide the legality and propriety of termination order dated 6.10.2004 passed by appellant in respect of one workman by name “Bhanwar Lal”. During pendency of reference and before it could be answered by the Labour Court, Bhanwar Lal died. His legal representatives were allowed to be brought on record by the Labour Court to continue the reference proceedings. By award dated 27.10.2009 the Labour Court answered the reference. It was held that termination of Bhanwar Lal was illegal and hence it cannot sustain in the eye of law. It was accordingly set aside. It was however held that since Bhanwar Lal has expired and hence it is not possible to direct his reinstatement in service. Accordingly, an award for Rs.35,000/- was passed by way of compensation payable to his legal representatives in lieu of reinstatement of Bhanwar Lal in services. It is this award which was challenged by employer (appellant herein) by filing writ petition which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by impugned order giving rise to filing of this { 3 } intra court appeal. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants (employer) was only one. According to him, since during pendency of reference proceedings, Bhanwar Lal died and hence, the reference made to Labour Court should have been first amended by State by allowing his legal representatives to be brought on record in the reference. Learned counsel contended that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to amend the reference and allow the legal representatives of deceased employee to be brought on record in reference proceedings. It was thus contended that award is a nullity because the reference made to Labour Court became nullity consequent upon the death of Bhanwar Lal and no steps were taken by State to get the reference amended by inserting the names of legal representatives of deceased Bhanwar Lal. 7. We do not agree to this submission as it has no merit whatsoever. 8. In our considered view, the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to entertain application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased employee so also it had full jurisdiction to answer the reference made to it. In a case of this nature, it is not necessary for the State to amend the reference. Indeed, the death of workman does not render the reference infructuous nor it is necessary to amend the reference by State. A right to prosecute the reference for several other reliefs (except the relief of reinstatement) devolves upon the legal representatives of deceased { 4 } workman, who have a right to seek a declaration that termination of deceased employee is bad. Such application for their substitution is required to be filed before the Labour Court in reference proceedings and not before the State. In other words, the legal representatives of deceased step into the shoes of deceased worker to continue the lis pending before Labour Court which enable the Labour Court to answer the reference on its merits. 9. We are, therefore, of the view that award in question was rightly passed in favour of legal representatives of deceased workman who received the compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of deceased's right to claim reinstatement, which was not possible in this case because of his death. A sum of Rs.35,000/- being an estate devolved upon the legal representatives, which was subject matter of lis and hence they had a right to receive the same. It was thus rightly awarded to them by Labour Court and rightly upheld by learned Single Judge. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit. It is dismissed. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/