( 1 ) ). This petition is filed by the workman as his application, ex. 4, filed in Reference (LCN) No. 864 of 1983 for bringing the heirs of the deceased employer Indravadan Shankerlal Trivedi on record of that reference has been rejected.

( 2 ) ). From the order, it appears that the reference was made on 18- 6-1983 and the employer died on 29-8-1983, On 30-3-1984, the workman gave application, Ex. 4, for bringing Jasumati, Shirishkumar and Rohitkumar as heirs of the deceased Indravadan. Notices were issued to the proposed heirs. They appeared before the Court and opposed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of the reference and, therefore, it was not within its jurisdiction to substitute the heirs of the deceased as party to the reference. The Labour Court, relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in V. Veeramani v. The Management of Madurai Dist Co-op. S. and M. Socy. Ltd. , 1983 Lab. 1c 687, upheld the contention raised on behalf of the heirs and dismissed the application. That order is challenged by the workman.

( 3 ) ). What is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner workman is that under Sec. 18b of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour court has power to add parties to the proceeding pending before it. Moreover, power to bring the heirs on record in a proceeding pending before it is only an incidental power. Therefore the Labour Court, instead of dismissing the application, ought to have granted the same. He conceded that there is no direct decision on the point, but submitted that the observations made by this Court in the case of Management of Bank of Baroda v. Workmen of Bank of Baroda, (1979) XX GLR 375, support his submission. In that case, the workman died before the matter was heard by the Industrial Tribunal. The mother of the workman in her capacity as heir and legal representative of the deceased workman applied for being joined as a party to the reference. The Tribunal took the view that it was not necessary to join the mother of the deceased workman as a party to the reference. The mother filed special Civil Application No. 2504 of 1978 in this Court as her application for being joined as heir and legal representative of the deceased workman was not granted. This Court held that on the death of the workman, even though the reference was of an individual dispute, the Tribunal did not become functus officio, and the reference did not abate merely because pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the workman concerned died. It held that mere accidental occurrence of death of the workman concerned cannot come to the rescue of an employer so far as the adjudication proceedings are concerned. Taking this view, her petition was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to allow the proceedings to be continued by the mother as the heir and legal representative of the deceased workman. In that case, this Court heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The u. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2521. The following observation made therein is also helpful in this case ;

( 4 ) ). Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1746 In case, the Supreme court has held that the result of the relevant provisions (Sees. 18 (3) (b), 11 (3) and l0 (.)) is that if the Industrial Tribunal, while dealing with an industrial dispute, come to the conclusion that persons other than those mentioned as parties to the industrial dispute were necessary for a valid determination of the said dispute, it had the power to summon them, and if such persons were summoned to appear in the proceedings, the award that the Industrial Tribunal may ultimately pronounce would be binding on them. In that case, the Supreme Court has also held that :"as to the exient of this power, it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of ref