1. This appeal assails the order dated 23/06/2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27968/1999 and connected writ petitions.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the legal representatives of the Managing Partner of a coffee estate. The same was purchased by the appellant from respondent Nos.3 to 6 by a registered sale deed dated 26/04/1994. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be the workers of respondent No.7-estate. Respondent No.8 is the vendor of respondent Nos.3 to 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were terminated from service on 30/07/1984 by respondent No.7 on medical grounds. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the State Government referred I.D.Ref.No.98/1995 before the Labour Court at Madikeri for adjudication. It is the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that their termination was not preceded by any enquiry and without any reason they were terminated. Therefore, they sought quashing of the order of termination, reinstatement and consequential benefits.

3. The said claim was contested by filing detailed statement of objections. It is the case of the management that respondent Nos.1 and 2 workmen repeatedly complained of fatigue during working hours. They were referred to the District Surgeon, Government Hospital, Madikeri, for medical examination. The District Surgeon had opined that they were medically unfit to work and had given a certificate dated 11/07/1984 to that effect. The said certificate showed that they were unfit for skilled or unskilled work. As a result, the management had given them one month's notice and they were called upon to collect one month's wages in lieu of notice and all other benefits to which they were entitled to. But respondent Nos.1 and 2 had refused to accept the offer made by the management by contending that it was an illegal termination. The management sought dismissal of the claims made by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Labour Court had framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration:

i) Whether the petitioner proves that they were discharged from service with effect from 30/07/1984 on medical ground by the second party management?

ii) Whether Vasu is the son of deceased Duggamma (first party) and entitled to seek benefit as legal heir?

iii) Whether second party are liable for the claim made by the first party, if so, which of the respondent is responsible?

iv) Whether first party Rosamma and Duggamma are entitled for relief sought? v) What order or award?

Additional Issue:

i) Are the management of Venkids Valley Estate Kandanakolly legally justified in discharging Smt. Rosamma and Smt. Duggamma workers form service with effect from 30/07/1984 on medical grounds?

5. In support of their contentions, the parties had let-in their evidence, both oral as well as documentary. The Labour Court on hearing the parties held that the management had failed to establish that the workmen were physically unfit for discharging their duties. Therefore, their discharge from service on medical grounds was improper and unjustifiable. During the pendency of the proceedings, the second respondent Duggamma died and Rosamma the first respondent had attained the age of superannuation. Taking into consideration the subsequent events, reinstatement was not ordered but they were granted back wages from the date of their discharge till the date of death of Duggamma and till the date of superannuation of Rosamma by an award passed by the Labour Court on 31/10/1998.

6. Before the Labour Court, the successor-in-interest of respondent No.7 were arrayed as respondent No.1. They had filed their statement of objections and contested the matter. The Labour Court had held that, as the appellant herein had purchased the estate during the pendency of the proceedings before it, they were liable to satisfy the claim of this workmen having regard to Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ("I.D.Act" for short). The Labour Co