AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyabrata Sinha, CJ. 1. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners relies upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in Rameshwar Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi Vs. Managemenmt of Sangramgarh Colliery and others, and submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The factual matrix in the case before the Supreme Court is entirely different from the facts of the instant case. In that case the concerned workman was already inflicted with a punishment and an industrial dispute was raised by him.
When the matter was pending adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal, the concerned workman died. Thus, the question that had arisen before the Supreme Court was whether the industrial adjudication could be proceeded with further by substituting the legal representatives of the deceased workman in his place. The Apex Court answered the question in the affirmative. But in the instant case, the delinquent-employee died on 11-9-1995 and by the dale of his death the departmental enquiry against him was not concluded and that he was not inflicted with any punishment. Therefore, the question of continuation of departmental enquiry against his LRs., by substituting them in his place would not arise. If a contrary view is taken in this regard it would grossly be violative of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.