Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
Rameshwar Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi, Appellant
Versus
Management of Sangramgarh Colliery and other Respondents. 1177
Civil Appeal No. 107 (NL) of 1984, D/- 16-11-1993.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A , 33(c) (2) and 18(3) - Indian Succession Act - Section 306 - Industrial dispute - Workman concerned dies –Compensation - First set of High Courts have held that on death of a workman industrial dispute cannot survive and proceedings must come to an end whereas Kerala and Gujarat High Courts have held that industrial dispute survives deceased-workman and reference can be continued by legal heirs/ representatives of deceased-workman - Working as coal-cutter in service of respondent-management - On he met with an accident while working in colliery and as a consequence his right leg was amputated - Medical Board recommended him for light duty on surface - It is his case that he presented himself before management and requested that he be permitted to resume duties but management did not permit him to join - Case of management is that workman became unfit to perform duties and as such his services were terminated with effect from by giving him adequate compensation - Raised a dispute – Held, All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators - So, in case of a deceased workman where reference is under S. 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, heirs and legal representatives can agitate question firstly, whether termination of deceased workman was just, legal and proper and secondly, if it was wrongful and invalid, then, what compensation in terms of money could have been given to workman from a particular date fixed by Tribunal till date of reinstatement and if reinstatement cannot be granted because of death of workman, till date of his death - Court therefore hold that on death of workman, even when reference is of an individual dispute under S. 2A of Act Tribunal does not become functus officio or reference does not abate merely because, pending adjudication, workman concerned dies - It is open to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased workman to have matter agitated and decided - Court allow appeal, set aside award of Tribunal dated and send the case back to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 3, for decision on merits - Tribunal shall finally dispose of matter within six months of receipt of this judgment - Appellant shall be entitled to his cost which Court quantify - Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary issue addressed is whether an industrial dispute survives when the concerned workman dies during its pendency and if the proceedings before the Tribunal or Labour Court can be continued by the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased workman (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that, generally, proceedings in industrial disputes do not automatically terminate upon the death of the workman. Instead, the rights and demands of the deceased, including claims for reinstatement, back wages, or monetary benefits, survive to and can be prosecuted by the legal heirs or representatives (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to promote industrial peace and that proceedings are meant to resolve disputes affecting not only the individual workman but also the community of workers. Therefore, the death of a workman during proceedings does not necessarily end the dispute (!) (!) .
It was highlighted that the nature of the relief sought influences whether the dispute survives. Claims for monetary compensation or benefits, which are not inherently personal or non-survivable, can be continued by heirs or legal representatives (!) (!) .
The Court distinguished between personal causes of action, which may not survive death, and civil or statutory causes, which generally do. It noted that actions for damages, property rights, or monetary claims tend to survive, whereas personal injuries or defamation claims may not (!) (!) .
The Court approved the reasoning that proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act are aimed at establishing peace and resolving issues affecting the entire industry or community, thus justifying continuation by heirs or representatives even after the workman's death (!) (!) .
The Court also clarified that the proceedings do not become functus officio or abate solely because of the workman's death. Instead, the legal heirs or representatives are entitled to have the matter adjudicated on the merits (!) (!) .
The Court set aside the previous tribunal's decision that proceedings should end upon the workman's death and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the competent tribunal within a specified timeframe, with costs awarded to the appellant (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the principles of survival of causes of action, as recognized in civil law, are applicable to industrial disputes, especially those involving claims for monetary benefits or reinstatement, and that the legislative intent supports allowing legal heirs to continue such disputes (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal position established affirms that the death of a workman during an industrial dispute does not extinguish the dispute, and the rights of the deceased can be pursued by their legal heirs or representatives, ensuring justice and continuity in industrial proceedings (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this matter.
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, J. :- The question for our consideration, in this appeal, is whether an industrial dispute survives when the workman concerned dies during its pendency? Can the proceedings before the Tribunal/Labour Court be continued by the legal heirs/ representatives of the deceased workman? Relying upon the judgment of Patna High Court in Bihar Working Journalists Union v. H.K. Chaudhuri, 1968 Lab IC 515 : (AIR 1968 Patna 135), the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad, Bihar (the Tribunal), by its award dated January 4, 1982 has answered the question in the negative. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal.
2. There is sharp difference of opinion between the Assam, Patna, Delhi and Orissa High Courts on the one hand and Kerala and Gujarat High Courts on the other. The first set of High Courts have held that on the death of a workman the industrial dispute cannot survive and the proceedings must come to an end, whereas the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts have held that the industrial dispute survives the deceased-workman and the reference can be continued by the legal heirs/ representatives of the deceased-workman.
3. We may briefly notice the facts of the case. Rameshwar Manjhi was working as coal-cutter in the service of the respondent-management. On May 3, 1974 he met with an accident while working in the colliery and as a consequence his right leg was amputated. The Medical Board recommended him for light duty on surface. It is his case that he presented himself before the management and requested that he be permitted to resume duties but the management did not permit him to join. The case of the management is that the workman became unfit to perform the duties and as such his services were terminated with effect from July 22, 1974 by giving him adequate compensation. Rameshwar Manjhi raised a dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal in the following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Sangramgarh colliery under Eastern Coal-fields Limited, Post office Samdi, District Burdwan in terminating the employment of Shri Rameshwar Manjhi, coal cutter with effect from the 22nd of July, 1974 was justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
During the pendency of the reference Rameshwar Manjhi died on January 19, 1981. Lekhiram Manjhi, son and only heir of Rameshwar Manjhi, filed application dated May 24, 1981 before the Tribunal seeking permission to be substituted in the proceedings. The management contested the application on the ground that after the death of Rameshwar Manjhi the reference did not survive and became infructuous. The Tribunal by its award dated January 4, 1982 rejected the application, accepted the objection of the management and closed the reference on the following reasoning:
"In support of his contention two rulings have been cited on behalf of workman reported in(1979) 2 Lab LJ57 : and (1978) 2 Lab U 188 . The former ruling is of Gujarat High Court while later of Kerala High Court. In the above two rulings it is held that on the death of a workman during the pendency of the proceeding the Tribunal does not cease to exercise jurisdiction as benefits due to the deceased workman can be realised by his legal heir under Section 33(c) (2) of the I.D. Act. But the ruling of our own High Court (Patna High Court) is contra. It has been held in the ruling reported in AIR 1968 Patna 135 (Bihar Working Journalists Union, v. H. K. Chaudhury) that in certain cases on the death of a workman the reference will not be infructuous, but it has been held that there can be no doubt that the death of the workman during the pendency of the adjudication proceeding puts an end to the Industrial Dispute for the simple reason that he can no longer be reinstated. We are bound by the ruling of the Patna High Court and in the fact of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
