Legal heirs of a deceased workman can continue industrial dispute proceedings, and Labour Courts must decide on merits rather than solely on jurisdictional grounds.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief/s:-

"4(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and / or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order rejecting the reference of the dispute, being illegal, perverse and contrary to the record and against the order and judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in earlier Spl.C.A. No.2550/99.

(B) Direct the Labour Court to implead the petitioner being lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Shri Shushilkumar and be further pleased to direct the learned Labour Judge to decide the issue on merit within reasonable time;

(BB) That Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.2.2007, as being illegal and against the mandatory provisions of Section 10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and permit the applicant to be joined as party.

(C) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the husband of the petitioner was working as Driver in the Gas Authority of India and his service came to be terminated on 10.6.1992. The husband of the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the termination order by raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which was registered as Reference (LCS) No. 228 of 1994. The said reference came to be rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that appropriate government is the Central Government and not the State of Gujarat.

2.1. The husband of the petitioner has challenged said order by filing Special Civil Application No. 2550 of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 25.8.2005. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the labour Court and again rejected the same on the ground that the appropriate government is the Central Government and not the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for joining legal heirs on record vide Exh.26 and the said Exh.26 came to be rejected vide order dated 23.2.2007. The review application was filed wherein the labour Court vide order dated 23.2.2007 allowed the application filed vide Exh.15 and the reference was rejected on the ground that the Central Government is the appropriate government. The petitioner submitted ration card wherein the petitioner's name and name of her children were mentioned.

2.2. In view of the above facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition.

3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nancy Sonly for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the respondent.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order passed by the labour Court is illegal and erroneous. He has further submitted that earlier this Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the labour Court and directed the labour Court to decide the issue on merits, however instead of deciding the issue on merits, the labour Court has rejected the matter on the ground of jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the said issue was exhaustively dealt with by this Court in earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.2550 of 1999.

4.1 Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the labour Court has not allowed the application for bringing legal heirs on the record and therefore, the said action is also illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.2 Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rasulbhai Pirbhai Shaikh vs. Jasumatiben Indravadan Trivedi and others passed in Special Civil Application No. 957 of 1992 dated 18.12.1992 and more particularly paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 which read as under:-

"6. That was a case where the workman had died during the pendenc