9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an industrial dispute survives when the workman concerned dies during its pendency. 2. Whether the proceedings before the Tribunal/Labour Court can be continued by the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased workman. Detailed Analysis: 1. Survival of Industrial Dispute Upon Workman's Death: The primary issue was whether an industrial dispute continues to exist if the workman dies during its pendency. The Tribunal, relying on the Patna High Court's decision in Bihar Working Journalists' Union v. H.K. Chaudhuri, concluded that the dispute does not survive and must be terminated. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view, stating that the death of the workman does not necessarily end the industrial dispute. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of the Industrial Disputes Act is to maintain industrial peace, and this objective should not be thwarted by the death of a workman. 2. Continuation of Proceedings by Legal Heirs/Representatives: The second issue was whether the legal heirs or representatives of a deceased workman can continue the proceedings before the Tribunal/Labour Court. The Tribunal had rejected this possibility, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision. The Court reasoned that the right to claim monetary benefits or other compensations survives the death of the workman and can be pursued by the legal heirs. The Court referred to various High Court judgments, noting the divergence of opinions among them, and ultimately sided with the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts' view that the legal heirs can continue the proceedings. Analysis of High Court Judgments: - Assam High Court: Held that the cause of a dead man could not be taken up by workmen's union and that the dispute expires with the workman's death. - Patna High Court: Concluded that heirs or legal representatives cannot continue an industrial dispute, interpreting clauses (c) and (d) of Section 18(3) of the Act to mean that the dispute ends with the workman's death. - Delhi and Orissa High Courts: Held that applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act cannot be continued by the legal heirs, suggesting that such claims should be pursued in civil courts. - Bombay High Court: Contrarily, held that legal heirs could claim monetary benefits due to the deceased workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Supreme Court's Reasoning: The Supreme Court found the reasoning of the Assam, Patna, Delhi, and Orissa High Courts unconvincing and sided with the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts. The Court highlighted that the Industrial Disputes Act's primary aim is to ensure industrial peace and that the death of a workman should not undermine this objective. The Court also referenced the maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" (a personal action dies with the person), noting its limited application and criticism even in English law. The Court stated that the applicability of this maxim depends on the relief claimed and the specific facts of each case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that on the death of a workman, the Tribunal does not become functus officio, and the reference does not abate. The legal heirs or representatives of the deceased workman have the right to continue the proceedings and claim any benefits due. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's award was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 3, Dhanbad, Bihar, for a decision on merits within six months. The appellant was awarded costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
|
