1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2623/2010. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr. vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr. Date : 19.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ashok Chhangani, for the petitioners. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved against the award dated 27.10.2009 by which the Labour Court, after taking on record the legal representatives of deceased employee Bhanwar Lal, held that the removal of the deceased employee from service vide order dated 6.10.2004 was not legal and since the employee has already died, therefore, awarded Rs.35,000/- as compensation. While doing so, the Labour Court also observed that whatever benefit accrued in favour of the deceased employee while he was in service in accordance with the Rules, those benefits will be given to the dependents/ legal heirs of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the employee was initially convicted under Section 304 IPC, however, that conviction was altered to Section 304A IPC and in view of the 2 fact that his conviction was maintained, therefore, the order of the Labour Court is illegal. It is also submitted that some other benefits have also been given to the heirs of the deceased employee. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the reasons given in the award as well as facts of the case. The deceased employee was convicted under Section 304A IPC and that was found not to be any conviction for offence of any moral turpitude. The Tribunal's finding is totally justified and the award of Rs.35,000/- cannot be said to be exaggerated in any manner. So far as the grant of other benefits to the deceased employee is concerned, for that how his legal heirs can be denied these benefits, has not been shown by the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court could not have taken on record the legal heirs of the deceased and the reference itself should have been got amended, has no legal foundation in view of the fact that the reference remains as it is because the order related to the deceased employee and only the question referred as it is, was relevant and could have been under consideration. Who 3 prosecuted the matter is not material in such a situation and the employee cannot be dragged to get the reference amended in the name of the legal heirs because of the reason that the dispute will remain in relation to the deceased employee only. In view of the above, this writ petition of the petitioner, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya