(K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Prior to Bifurcation Known as APSRTC) ______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
B. Venkateshwarlu ________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 8070 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25479 of 2018), decided on November 2, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant calls in question the judgment dated 19.01.2018 in W.A. No. 57 of 2018. By the said judgment, the writ appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34419 of 2013 filed again by the appellant, came to be dismissed. The writ petition, in turn, was directed against the Award by the Labour Court dated 08.08.2016 by which the respondent was directed to be reinstated with 50 per cent backwages.
3. Today when the matter came up Shri Harsha Peechara, learned counsel for the appellant, would make the following submissions.
4. As it turned out on inquiry being made, it is submitted that, in fact, the respondent had passed away on 22.03.2016. This means that even as on the day when the Labour Court pronounced the Award in his favour on 08.08.2016, the respondent was not alive. At the same time, we do notice that it is a case where the Award is in favour of the respondent. It is the appellant who filed the writ petition as it turns out against the dead person. The appellant unknowingly apparently persevered in the error in maintaining the writ appeal against the respondent who was dead as on 22.03.2016. Even in the special leave petition before this Court, the respondent is made a party and he was long dead. At the time when the Court issued notice in this matter, the following was the order passed on 31.08.2018:
“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice to show cause as to why in lieu of the reinstatement, compensation should not be directed to be paid to the respondent-workman.”
5. In view of the fact that reinstatement is obviously not possible and, in fact, was not possible even as on the date of the Award and noticing the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the widow of the respondent is alive and that in terms of what was, in fact, contemplated when notice was issued by this Court, he submits, on instructions, that a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs can be ordered to be paid as compensation.
6. We would think that though ordinarily we should ask the appellant to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, in nature of the order we propose to pass, we think it may not be necessary. We dispose of the appeal in the following manner:
7. We modify the impugned order and direct that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs as compensation which will finally settle the demands under the Award. The amount of Rs. 9 lakhs shall be paid to the widow of the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The amount will be deposited with the Labour Court No. 3, Hyderabad.
8. The Labour Court will issue a notice to the widow on the basis of the particulars to be furnished by the appellant.
9. The amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the widow of the respondent.
10. This order shall be produced before the Labour Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
11. The appellant will furnish the details of the widow along with the order.
12. Registry of this Court will also communicate a copy of this order to the Labour Court.
———
