Union of India and two others vs Smt. Janki Devi and Six others

P.C. Verma, J.—This petition has been filed by the Petitioners, challenging the order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital on the application for substitution moved by the legal representatives of the Appellant (deceased) in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1998/whereby he has allowed the application moved by the applicants/respondents.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that after the death of the employee, legal heirs of the employee cannot contest the case as the cause of auction is only between the employer and the employee and it does, not survive to the heirs of the employee. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of_ Rameshwar Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi Vs. Managemenmt of Sangramgarh Colliery and others, , the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is misconceived. The Apex Court in the above noted case has held as under:

We therefore hold that on the death of the workman, even when the reference is of an individual dispute u/s 2A of the Act the Tribunal does not become functus officio or the reference does not abate merely because, pending adjudication, the workman concerned dies. It is open to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman to have the matter agitated and decided.

In view of the above legal settled position, the cause of action of employee survives to the heirs and legal heirs of the deceased employee can contest the case.

I find there is no infirmity in the order by which the application for substitution was allowed. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. The appellate court is directed to conclude the hearing of the aforesaid appeal and to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.