IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.334 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1977 OF 2006 M/s.Agarwal Traders & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Ankush M.Bhabal & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Ketaki Rege for Applicants/Respondents 1 to 7. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr.Jayesh Desai for Petitioners. Mr.Neel Helekar for Respondent No.8. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 10, 2008. MARCH 10, 2008. MARCH 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this Chamber Summons, the legal heirs and representatives of three deceased workers namely Late Shri Maruti Vishram Bhabhal, Late Shri Prakash Gunaji Ghavale and Late Shri Dattatray Janardan Kharkar have prayed that they may be brought on record as legal heirs of deceased workers. This prayer is opposed by the Petitioners on the argument that insofar as the said deceased : 2 : workers are concerned, the proceedings have already abated, inasmuch as the said workers died during the pendency of the complaint itself and no steps were taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of those three deceased workers. 2. In the first place, it is not disputed that these three workers have been named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. Secondly, it is seen that the complaint which was filed, though by seven workers, explicitly asserted that the same is being pursued on behalf of the Applicants named in the complaint (seven complainants) as also in representative capacity for and on behalf of other workers named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. Indeed, the Petitioners objected to the said stand of the complainant on the ground that the said seven complainants were not duly authorised by the workers named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. The Petitioners also took out formal application for framing of preliminary issue about the locus standi of the seven complainants to espouse the cause of the remaining workers named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. However, that application : 3 : was disposed of by keeping that question open to be decided at the appropriate stage. 3. The fact remains that the Petitioners did not insist for framing of that issue before the lower Court. No such issue has been framed by the lower Court. On the other hand, the lower Court proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that the complaint was filed by seven complainants for themselves as also for and on behalf of other workers named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. In other words, the lower Court has decided the matter as if it was in representative capacity of all the workers. It is also noticed that the Petitioners have questioned the correctness of the said decision before this Court on the basis that the Court below committed manifest error in proceeding on the assumption that the complaint was legitimately filed and pursued in representative capacity by the seven complainants on behalf of other workers named in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. Moreover, in terms of interim order passed by this Court, the Petitioners have deposited amount payable to all the workers which : 4 : presupposes that even the Petitioners have been under belief that the relief granted by the lower Court is for and on behalf of all the workers namely seven complainants and the named workers in Schedule ‘A’ to the complaint. 4. Thus understood, the fact that the three workers died during the pendency of the claim will make no difference as the complaint had been pursued in representative capacity. The interest and estate of the said workers was therefore duly represented by the seven complainants who are Respondents before this Court. On this finding, it will not be necessary for the Applicants herein to be named as party Respondents in the present Writ Petition as their interest will be represented by the Respondents (original complainants). 5. There is, however, one aspect which needs to be addressed in this order namely; the Petitioners have specifically taken ground for challenging the impugned decision on the basis that the Industrial Court was not justified in entertaining the complaint on behalf of the : 5 : workmen, who had neither given an Authority nor were the parties to the proceedings. If that contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners was to be finally accepted, it would necessarily follow that only seven workers who have been named as complainants would be entitled for the benefit of the Judgment in favour of the workers and none else. In that case, the heirs and legal representatives of the three deceased workers can be legitimately heard on the said contention. 6. Keeping that contention in mind, the request of the Applicants in the present Chamber Summons for being brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of named deceased workers is accepted. 7. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Petitioners to carry out amendment within two weeks from today. 8. Chamber Summons disposed of on the above terms. : 6 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.