1. This petition is filed by the workman as his application Ex. 4, filed in Reference (LCN) No. 864 of 1983 for bringing the heirs of the deceased employer Indravadan Shankerlal Trivedi on record of that reference has been rejected.
2. From the order, it appears that the reference was made on June 18, 1983 and the employer died on August 29, 1983. On March 30, 1984, the workman gave application Ex. 4, for bringing Jasumati, Shirishkumar and Rohitkumar as heirs of the deceased Indravadan. Notices were issued to the proposed heirs. They appeared before the Court and opposed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of the reference and, therefore, it was not within its jurisdiction to substitute the heirs of the deceased as party to the reference. The Labour Court, relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in V. Veeramani v. The Management of Madurai Dist Co-op. S.& M. Socy. Ltd., 1983-II-LLJ-88, upheld the contention raised on behalf of the heirs and dismissed the application. That order is challenged by the workman.
3. What is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner workman is that under Section 18B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has power to add parties to the proceeding pending before it. Moreover, power to bring the heirs on record in a proceeding pending before it is only an incidental power. Therefore the Labour Court, instead of dismissing the application, ought to have granted the same. He conceded that there is no direct decision on the point, but submitted that the observations made by this Court in the case of Management of Bank of Baroda v. Workmen of Bank of Baroda, (1979) XX GLR 275, support his submission. In that case, the workman died before the matter was heard by the Industrial Tribunal. The mother of the workman in her capacity as heir and legal representative of the deceased workman applied for being joined as a party to the reference. The Tribunal took the view that it was not necessary to join the mother of the deceased workman as a party to the reference. The mother filed Special Civil Application No. 2504 of 1978 in this Court as her application for being joined as heir and legal representative of the deceased workman was not granted. This Court held that on the death of the workman, even though the reference was of an individual dispute, the Tribunal did not become functus officio, and the reference did not abate merely because pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the workman concerned died. It held that mere accidental occurrence of death of the workman concerned cannot come to the rescue of an employer so far as the adjudication proceedings are concerned. Taking this view, her petition was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to allow the proceedings to be continued by the mother as the heir and legal representative of the deceased workman. In that case, this Court heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The UP. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2521. The following observation made therein is also helpful in this case :
"The claim, as already pointed out, for services rendered in the past and dispute was a live one at the time when the reference was made by the State Government and indeed continued so far more than three years thereafter. It was only because of the protracted proceedings of the Tribunal that the award came to be made as late as November, 1965. The closure of the business long after the rendering of the services by the workmen and the reference of the dispute to the Tribunal cannot wipe out the claim of the workman or annul the adjudication in respect thereof"
4. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, 1964-II-LLJ-460. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that the result of the relevant provisions (Secs. 18(3)(b), 11(3) and 10(1) is that if the Industrial Tribunal, while dealing with an industrial dispute, came to the conclusion that persons other than those mentioned as parties to the industrial dispute were necessary for a valid determination of the said dispute, it had the power to summon them, and if such persons were summoned to appear in the proceedings, the award that the Industrial Tribunal may ultimately pronounce would be binding on them. In that case, the Supreme Court has also held that (p. 464) :
"As to the extent of this power, it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference for it is well settled that the terms of reference for it is well settled that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power and jurisdiction from case to case ...... Where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under Sec 18(3)(b) as it now stands"
5. In V. Veeramani's case (supra) which has been relied upon by the Labour Court the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held (pp. 91-92) :
"The power of the Tribunal under Section 18(3)(b) to summon parties is narrow and limited and is confined to cases where the summoning of the party is necessary to make the adjudication of the dispute as referred effective and enforceable. To read into Section 18(3)(b) of the Act a wider power in the Labour Court to summon or even implead the heirs or the legal representatives of the deceased workman and to entertain their claim on behalf of the estate of the deceased workman, will result in a wholesale substitution of an industrial dispute as referred by another dispute between the heirs of the deceased workman and the employer which is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act and would be outside it ..... There is no power in the Labour Court to implead the legal representative or heir of a deceased workman. On the basis of the provisions of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot recognise the heir or legal representative of a deceased workman or a claim at his or her instance on behalf of the estate of the deceased workman and permit the further prosecution of the proceedings."
6. That was a case where the workman had died during the pendency of the reference. The Madras High Court was called upon to examine, whether the heirs or legal representative of the workman could continue the said proceedings. It was in that context that the above observations were made by the Madras High Court while interpreting Section 18(3) of the Act. Consequential effect on the adjudication proceedings on the death of an employer would be quite different from the consequences following the death of a workman. Even if an employer dies, his industrial establishment may continue in the hands of his heirs and legal representatives. The claim which the workman makes against the employer, is qua the employer, not of a personal nature but because he happens to be the owner of the industrial establishment. The relief which the workman may be claiming can be granted even after the death of the employer, if the industrial establishment either remains in the hands of the successor in interest or in the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased employer. Merely because the name of the employer would thereafter change, it cannot be said that there is a substitution by a fresh dispute of the dispute, which was referred earlier to the Court by the Government. Section 18 of the Act provides that a settlement or an award, once it has become enforceable and if the employer is a party to it, shall be binding on the employers, heirs, successors, assigns in respect of their establishment to which the dispute relates. The rights of the workman against the employer qua his establishment cannot be made to die with the death of the employer. There does not appear to be any justification for taking such a view. Neither the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act nor any principle of law requires us to take such a view. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that it would be consistent with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to hold that the rights of the workman would survive even against the heirs and legal representatives of the employer, no doubt, qua the establishment to which the dispute relates, either because they have not inherited the said establishment or for any other reason, then, obviously, they cannot be joined as parties to the proceedings. But that is quite different from saying that the Labour Court has no power to bring the heir or legal representative of the employer on record in a matter which is referred to it under Section 10 of the Act. In our opinion, the observations made by this Court in the case of Management of Bank of Baroda's case (supra) and those of the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon's case referred to above, do lend support to this view.
7. We, therefore, hold that the Labour Court was in error in holding that it had no jurisdiction to substitute the name of the deceased employer by his legal heirs and representatives on the ground that in doing so it would be going beyond the terms of the reference.
8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court whereby the application, Ex. 4, came to be dismissed is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application, Ex. 4, consistently with this judgment and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
Comments