IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24373 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MRD.V.N.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 24373 of 2000 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled against the order in A.P.S.A. No. 1 of 2000, dated 28.08.2000, passed by the Appellate Authority, under Section 53 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’), conﬁrming the order in A.P.S.E. Case No. 2 of 1998, dated 06.04.2000, passed by the Labour Officer, Eluru, and to quash the same. Respondents 3 to 9 herein claiming to be the workmen of the petitioner approached the Labour Oﬃcer under Section 50 of the Act, seeking compensation and various other amounts. On an order being passed in their favour, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.P.S.A. No. 1 of 2000 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, West Godavari District, Eluru. Even during the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Oﬃcer, the petitioner contended that the third respondent herein had died and since his legal representatives were not brought on record, no relief could be granted in their favour. It is no doubt true that in case the claimant had died during the pendency of proceedings, and his legal representatives were not brought on record, the proceedings would have abated. It is, however, not for this Court to go into this aspect as to whether the third respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings before the original authority. If, as contended by the petitioner herein, the third respondent had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Oﬃcer, then it needs no reiteration that the proceedings would abate and the order of the original authority granting relief in favour of the third respondent would be without jurisdiction. Insofar as respondents 4 to 9 are concerned as noted above, they are among the persons who had ﬁled their claims before the original authority. Respondents 1 and 2 are merely pro-forma parties i.e., the original authority and appellate authority under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed for default as against respondents 4 to 9 by order of this Court dated 23.09.2004. Since, even according to the petitioner, the third respondent died, and as respondents 1 and 2 are merely pro-forma parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed against respondents 1 to 3 also, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 29.08.2008 Nsr