Kuldlip Singh, J.

1. 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. Chaudhiiri and another, 1968 LIC 515, 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 S.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 Coalfields 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 (11) 1A J p.57 and 1978 (II) LLJ p. 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 S.33(c)(2) of the 1. 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 Pat. P.135 (Bihar Working Journalists Union, Petitioner v. ILK. Cliandhury and another, Opp. Parties) 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 he can no longer be reinstated. We are bound by the ruling of the Patna High Court and in the f