B PANKAJAMMAL PROPRIETRIX BASKARAN MOTOR Vs. RATHIKANTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE J. D. Chandran filed C. P. No. 20 of 1976 before the Labour Court, Madras under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner in this writ petition was the respondent in the said claim petition. Pending adjudication of the said claim petition, J. D. Chandran died and his mother one Subhadrai Ammal was brought on record as the legal representative of her deceased son, on her application. This was done in spite of the contest by the petitioner herein that such an application was not maintainable. Pending further orders in the main claim petition, the aforesaid Subhadrai Ammal also died and her daughter Rathikantha ammal, the first respondent herein, filed I. A. No. 112 of 1978 before the Labour Court, Madras seeking to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Subhadrai Ammal and also of late J. D. Chandran to prosecute the claim petition. The petitioner herein contested the said application stating that the right under S. 33c (2) of the Act is a personal one to the workman and the legal representative of a deceased workman cannot prosecute or continue the claim petition filed by the workman. The petitioner also putforth a plea that the application, I. A. No. 112 of 1978 cannot be countenanced for want of production of a succession certificate. The Labour Court, Madras overruled these objections of the petitioner herein, by order dated 6-71978 and allowed the petition, permitting the first respondent herein to persecute and continue the proceedings in the main claim petition. The present writ petition is directed against this order of the Labour Court, Madras.

(2.) MR. C. S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would repeat and reiterate the contention that on the death of a claimant-workman in a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Act, the legal representative of the deceased workman cannot continue the claim petition. The learned counsel did not press forth the contention that for want of a succession certificate the legal representative of a deceased-workman cannot continue the proceedings before the Labour Court.

(3.) REFERENCE was made before me to a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Yad Ram v. Labour Court, [1978-II L. L. J. 306], where it has been held as follows :