MANJULA NARAYAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner heir and legal representative of the original workman, deceased Naran Pantaji has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent in sealing the residential premises of the petitioner situated at 85, Rameshwar Park, Odhav, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Having heard Shri Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Vasavda, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent, it appears that the property in question was sought to be sealed pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.03.2000 in First Appeal No.203/1980, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 06.03.1979 of Employee's Insurance Court, Ahmedabad granting declaration that the death of the deceased Naran Pantaji was the result of employment injury and that the applicant is dependent upon the deceased and is entitled to dependence benefit from the opponent. It is not in dispute that the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is against dead person as, admittedly, Narsabai widow of Naran Pantaji who was party respondent in the said First Appeal had died during the pendency of aforesaid First Appeal and the heirs of sole respondent deceased Narsabai widow of Naran Pantaji was not brought on record. Under the circumstances, when the amount sought to be recovered by the respondent was pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was passed against a dead person and therefore, it is not open for the respondent to recover the amount under the said order, which is a nullity as the same is against a dead person. Under the circumstances, impugned action of the respondent in sealing the property to recover the amount under the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.03.2000 in First Appeal No.203/1980 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. The action of the respondent in sealing the residential premises of the petitioner situated at 85, Rameshwar Park, Odhav, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs.