ORDER

Substitution allowed.

2. The original appellant before us was employed in the establishment of the respondent. He was dismissed in 1990 and approval of the Industrial Tribunal was sought for under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Such approval was granted by the Tribunal on July 26, 1993, which was challenged in a proceeding arising under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Learned single Judge who dealt with the writ petition, quashed the order made by the Industrial Tribunal. On further appeal to the Division Bench, the High Court set aside the order made by the learned single Judge and restored that of the Industrial Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. During the pendency of these proceedings, it is brought to our notice, that the appellant had died. The legal representatives are allowed to come on record.

4. The contention put forth before us is that the High Court should not have interfered with the order made by the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. There may be force in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant but that is not the end of the matter as the High Cour