THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.33829 of 1997 August 25, 2011 Between: P.Shantamma alias Jayamma, W/o.Late P.Jairam Reddy And another ... Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nampally, Hyderabad And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.33829 of 1997 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the award dated 12.3.1994 in I.D.No.390 of 1993 (old No.40 of 1991) passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of P.Jairam Reddy, who is no more. While he was working as driver, in a disciplinary enquiry he was removed from service on 25.6.1988. He died on 02.7.1989. About four years thereafter, the petitioners raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). The second respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC); opposed raising the question of maintainability of the Industrial Dispute. According to the APSRTC, an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased employee would not lie, as the legal representatives cannot be treated as workman. Accepting the plea, the Labour Court passed the award holding that the order of removal was valid. In the writ petition, a question was raised as to whether the Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Act filed by the legal representatives, after death of the workman, is maintainable. The matter was listed before a learned Single Judge on 20.1.1998. Having noticed the decision of the learned Single Judges in Bharathamma v The Labour Court[1] and Anjilamma v The Labour Court-III[2] held that an Industrial Dispute would be maintainable at the instance of the legal representatives. Further, after noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Manjhi v Management of Sangramgarh Colliery[3], the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the decision in Anjilamma is not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Manjhi and, accordingly, referred the matter to the Division Bench. Thereafter the matter has been coming up for ‘Final Hearing’. On 08.4.2008, after hearing the matter, this Court recorded the proceedings as follows. The husband of the petitioner No.1 by name P.Jairam Reddy was working in the 2nd respondent Corporation as Driver and he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. The petitioners’ case is that the said allegation is not true as the husband of petitioner No.1 submitted sick certificate issued by R.T.C. Hospital informing that he hwas suffering from illness of diabetics and H.H.D. It is the further case of the petitioners that they are entitled to all the terminal benefits consequent on the death of the deceased by treating the deceased as died while in service. During the course of arguments, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent-Corporation produced a copy of the proceedings No.B1/785(546)/1997 dated 31.3.2008 issued by the Senior Law Officer wherein the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Greater Hyderabad City Zone, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad was requested to treat the removal order No.P2/403(1)/87-DSNR dated 25.6.1988 of Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar as that of voluntary retirement from service on medical grounds and to take further action accordingly at an early date. Learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent requested time for compliance of the said proceedings. In view of the above, the writ petition is adjourned on 16.6.2008 for compliance of the proceedings dated 31.3.2008 referred above. The matter was listed before this Bench on 04.8.2011. The Standing Counsel for APSRTC brought to our notice that the terminal benefits have been paid to the petitioners and, therefore, the question raised does not survive. We directed him to file an affidavit. Today the Law Officer, APSRTC has filed an affidavit stating that the SBT Final settlement amount and gratuity amount have been paid to the petitioners. In view of the fact that APSRTC, which raised objection before the Labour Court, has already paid the amount, we do not deem it proper to consider the question raised at this stage. We leave it open to decide in an appropriate case. The writ petition, with the above observations, is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) August 25, 2011 YS [1] 1995 (2) ALD 472 [2] 1995(2) ALD 780 [3] AIR 1994 SC 1176