- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B.N. Singh for Respondent No. 3.
(2.) Sri B.N. Singh stated that the workman concerned, Respondent No. 3, died on 1.12.1996 and this fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by misc. application No. 54214 of 1997, requesting for dismissal of writ petition since his legal heirs were not brought on record by the Petitioner. He also pointed out that employer was already informed about this fact by letter dated 1.1.1997 a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 2 to the aforesaid misc. application. Hence, no relief can be granted to Petitioner against a person who has died on 1.12.1996 and his legal heirs are not on record. I find substance in submission.
(3.) Moreover, having considered the submission of learned Counsel for Petitioner, I find that it is evident that the question whether the workman concerned seized to work rightly on 31.1.1984 has been considered by Labour Court by recording a finding of fact that date of birth of workman being 1933, he could not have been retired in 1984 since he would not have completed 60 years of age.;