The death of a workman during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not abate the proceedings, and the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased workman can continue the proceedings and claim the benefits as successors to the deceased workman.

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the employer to quash the award (Annexure P-3) dated March 2, 1995 passed by the Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal ).

2. Workman Krishan Gopal Gandhi joined the service of the petitioner-bank as an Assistant Cashier on October 13, 1960. He was suspended on February 7, 1970. This was followed by a charge-sheet and an order for domestic inquiry. Shri V. H. Range was appointed as Inquiry officer. Shri Pange started the inquiry but did not continue with it. On june 18, 1971 he gave out that the inquiry proceedings were being postponed till the appointment of new Inquiry Officer. Subsequently vide his letter dated August 3, 1971, Shri Pange informed the representative of the workman that the inquiry has been entrusted to shri S. K. Gauba, Assistant Chief Agent, New Delhi. The Divisional officer of the Bank also issued letter dated August 3, 1971 indicating that Shri S. K. Gauba will now hold inquiry because Shri Pange had been entrusted with some urgent work. Shri S. K. Gauba, also did not complete the inquiry and once again Shri V. H. Pange assumed the role of Inquiry officer. On July 11, 1972 evidence of the management was closed but no date was fixed for defence evidence. Instead Shri V. H. Pange called upon the representatives of the Bank and the workman to submit their written arguments. Thereafter, he gave his findings on september 30, 1972. The workman objected to the procedure adopted by Shri Pange by pointing out that no opportunity of defence had been given to him. Thereafter, Shri Pange issued letter dated December 2, 1972 and fixed one date for evidence of the workman but subject to a condition that questions pertaining to the veracity of the witnesses, already produced, shall not be permitted. Shri Pange once again gave findings adverse to the workman and confirmed the proposed punishment on September 24, 1973. The workman was relieved from service on May 12, 1975. He filed appeal against the decision of Shri pange. That appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate authority. Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred to the respondent-Tribunal vide Central government notification dated April 13, 1982.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the workman filed his statement of claim and challenged the inquiry on the ground of violation of the terms of Shastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite settlement and also on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He also levelled allegations of bias and mala fide. The petitioner-bank contested the statement of claims by filing a written statement. Therein the petitioner pleaded that the Inquiry Officer had given full opportunity to the workman and also that the action taken against the workman was justified. The respondent-Tribunal considered the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence produced by them and held that the domestic inquiry was contrary to the principles of natural justice. On that premises, the respondent-Tribunal further held that the termination of service of the workman was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the workman had died during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, it awarded relief of back wages only to the extent of 50% to the legal heirs of the deceased workman.

4. First contention urged by Shri Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondent-Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award after the death of the workman, Shri Sawhney argued that the right of the workman to continue in employment was personal to him and with his death that right would be deemed to have extinguished and, therefore, the respondent-Tribunal could not have awarded relief in the form of compensation to the legal heirs of the workman. Shri Sawhney placed reliance on a recent judgment of this court in Nar