SH. RAMESHWAR MANJHI (DECEASED) THROUGH B HIS SON SH. LAKHIRAM MANJHI versus THE MANAGEMENT OF SANGRAMGARH COLLIERY AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 16-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SH. RAMESHWAR MANJHI (DECEASED) THROUGH 
B 
HIS SON SH. LAKHIRAM MANJHI 
v. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF SANGRAMGARH 
COLLIERY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1993 
[~DIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
Indu)trial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2A, 18(3), 33(C) (2)-Whether 
C industrial dispute relating to tennination of service survives, when the work-
man concerned dies during its pendency-Held: the reference of an individual 
dispute under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act does not become 
functuous officio or abate, merely because, pending adjudication the workman 
concerned dies-Open to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased 
D workman to have the matter agitated and decided. 
Legal Maxims-Maxim ''Actio persona/is moritur cum persona''-Ap-
plicability of. 
The appellant (since deceased) had been working as coal cutter in 
E the service of the respondent-Management. He met with an accident while 
working In the colliery and his right leg was amputated. The Medical 
Board recommended him for light duty on surface. The workman's request 
to permit him to resume duties, was not acceded to by the Management, 
and his services were terminated by giving him adequate compensation. 
The worlanan raised a dispute under Section 2A or the Industrial Disputes 
F Act, 1947. The Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication 
f 
to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabotJr Court. During pendency of the 
reference the workman died. The application for substitution or L.Rs. was 
opposed by the management on the ground that after the death or the 
workman the reference did not survive and became infructuous. The 
G Tribunal rejected the application for substitution. The son or the deceased 
workman filed the present appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. On the death of the workman, even when the reference is 
H or an Individual dispute under Section 2 A or the Industrial Disputes Act, 
668 
R. MANJHI v. SANGRAMGARH COLLIERY 
669 
1947, the Tribunal does not become functuous officio and the reference A 
does not abate merely because, pendency adjudication, the workman dies. 
It is open to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman 
to have the matter agitated and decided. [680-G-H] 
Gwalior Rayons, Mavoor v. labour Court & Ors., (1978) II LW 188,. 
Bank of Baroda v. Workmen, (1979) II LW 57, approved. 
B 
2. By and large, the indu~trial disputes under Section 2A of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, relate to termination of services of the concerned 
workman. In the event of his death, during pendency of the proceedings, 
the relief of re-instatement cannot be granted, but the final determination C 
of the issues involved may be relevant, for regulating the conditions of 
service of the other workman. Primary object of the Act is to bring 
industrial peace. The TribunaVLabour Courts under the Act are instru· 
ments for achieving the same objective. It is, therefore, in conformity with 
the scheme of the Act, that proceedings in such a case should continue at 
the instance of the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased workman. D 
Even, there may be a claim for backwages or for monetary relief in any 
other form. The death of the workman during pendency of the proceedings 
cannot deprive the heirs or the legal representatives of their right to 
continue the proceedings and claim the benefits as successors to the 
deceased workman. (676-H, 677-A-C] 
E 
3. Section 18(3) of the Act enumerates the parties who are bound by 
the settlement arrived at in the manner provided therein. It has been 
enacted with a view to give continuity to the binding effect of the settle· 
ments reached between the parties. The provisions of the said section 
cannot be relied upon for denying a right to the heirs of a deceased 
workman to be substituted in a pending industrial dispute. 
(675-E·H, 676·A] 
F 
4. Having regard to the well established principle that all causes of 
action, except those which are known as dying along with the death of a 
person must survive to his heirs. The cause of action created in favour of G 
workman under Sub-section (2) of section 33C of the Industrial Disputes 
Act should in normal circumstances survive to his heirs. The maxim 'actio 
persona/is moritur cum persona' has been dubbed as unjust maxim. It 
operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for damages 
for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death H 
670 
SUPREME CO

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.