Legal heirs of deceased workman can continue and reopen industrial dispute proceedings post-death under ID Act.

ORDER

The petitioners challenge the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, in I.A. No. 10 of 2021 in A.P. No. 97 of 2019. By the said impugned order, the application filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.12.2019 was rejected.

2.The respondent/Management had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval for the dismissal of one Thiru Padmanathan, Driver. The said application was allowed on the ground that the workman had neither entered appearance in person nor was represented by any authorised representative to defend his case. Consequently, the approval sought by the respondent Management for the order of dismissal was granted.

3.The workman died on 07.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased workman, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.12.2019. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Act enabling the legal heirs of a deceased workman to file an application to reopen the proceedings and set aside an ex parte order.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent/Management placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in V. Veeramani vs. Madurai District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Limited , Madurai and another (Civil Appeal No. 8269 of 1983), wherein it was held that the power under Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to summon parties cannot be construed so broadly as to include impleading the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased workman, as such an interpretation would effectively alter or enlarge the reference made under Section 10(1) of the Act. It was further held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Tribunal is circumscribed by the terms of reference and that the power to summon parties is limited to ensuring effective adjudication of the dispute as referred. The Division Bench also observed that, under the scheme of the Act, the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased workman have no locus in proceedings pending adjudication. While Section 33C(1) permits recovery of money based on an adjudicated claim by a workman or his heirs or legal representatives, Section 33C(2) contemplates only a workman seeking computation of benefits, and does not extend such right to legal representatives.

6.However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rameshwar Manjhi vs. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery and others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 292, has held that upon the death of a workman, even in respect of an individual dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, the proceedings do not abate, nor does the Tribunal become functus officio. It was further held that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman are entitled to continue the proceedings. The applicability of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona depends upon the nature of the relief claimed and the facts of each case. In industrial disputes relating to termination of service, the adjudication may have wider implications, including on the service conditions of other workmen. Therefore, the death of the workman during the pendency of proceedings cannot deprive the legal heirs of their right to pursue the matter and claim consequential benefits.

7.In the present case, the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased workman, seek to set aside the ex parte order passed under Section