Maintainability or petition for bringing L.Rs. on record.

Ratnam, J.

An interesting question in the realm of industrial jurisprudence arises for our consideration and decision in this appeal. To lay bare that question and to highlight the controversy, the factual backdrop may be briefly noticed. One Thiru Veeranan was a senior clerk in the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. He was placed in charge of Srinivasa Mills for a brief period during which a shortage in the stock of grains and pulses was detected in the godown in respect whereof Veeranan was also charge-sheeted. A domestic enquiry followed his explanation and as a result of the findings arrived at, Veeranan was dismissed from service. This led to a reference by the Government under Section10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D. No. 65 of 1970 in the following terms :

"1. Whether the non-employment of Thiru C. Veeranan (Godown clerk) is justified, if not, to what relief he would be entitled ?

2. To compute the relief, if any, awarded, in terms of money, if it can be so computed." *

Pending adjudication of this reference, Veeranan died on 26th January, 1973. The appellant prayed in I.A. 102 of 1973 that he being the only son and heir of deceased Veeranan, should be brought on record and that in the event of an award being passed with back wages, the heirs of deceased Veeranan will be entitled to get those benefits.The respondent opposed this on the ground that the Act being a special and self-contained one and there being no provisions in the Act or in the Rules to implead the legal representatives of a deceased workman concerned in an industrial dispute, the general provisions of the C.P. Code will not apply. Apart from disputing the claim of the appellant as the sole heir of the deceased, the objection that the appellant was not a workman and had therefore no locus standi to prosecute the case further and that the relief asked for by deceased Veeranan was personal to him and would not survive was also raised.

2. The Labour Court, Madurai, found that there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder for impleading the legal representatives of a deceased workman, that the provisions of the C.P. Code would apply to certain specified matters only and not to all and therefore, on the death of a workman pending adjudication of an industrial dispute, no legal representatives can be brought on record. Dealing with the contention raised by the appellant that the relief prayed for was not personal to the deceased and therefore the legal representative could be brought on record, the Labour Court concluded that the question in each case depended upon the nature as well as the character of the dispute and that in the present case, the dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was purely personal to the deceased workman and on his demise, his legal representative cannot, therefore, be permitted to come on record or further prosecute the proceedings in the place of the deceased worker. Ultimately, the petition was held to be not maintainable and dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of I.A. 102 of 1973, an award was passed in I.D. 65 of 1970 dismissing the reference.

3. Thereupon, in W.P. No. 6555 of 1973, the appellant prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order in I.A. 102 of 1973 and to restore I.D. 65 of 1970 for disposal according to law. Therein, the appellant stated that Section18(3) of the Act empowers the Labour Court to implead the legal representative of a deceased workman. A further point was raised that the relief of back wages till retirement could be given to the workman, though dead, that a benefit belonging to the estate of the deceased workman, could be secured by his legal representative and therefore, that would enable him or her, as a person interested, to come on record. The principle of action personalis moritur cum persona, was inapplicable to industrial