Writ petition dismissed without merits review due to the nominal compensation amount involved.

The respondent-workman claimed that he had been employed as a watchman with the petitioner-State from 1 January 1982 and was orally terminated on 20 June 1987.

By judgment and award dated 10 January 2012 in Reference (LCV) No. 542 of 1988, the Labour Court held that reinstatement was not possible as the workman had attained the age of superannuation and awarded lump-sum compensation of ₹65,000 instead.

During the pendency of the petition, respondent No. 1 died.

The State sought condonation of a delay of 4,856 days in filing an application to bring his legal heirs on record and also sought impleadment of those heirs.

Whether sufficient cause was shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 4,856 days in applying to bring the deceased respondent’s legal heirs on record.

Whether the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 were necessary parties and should be brought on record.

Whether the Labour Court’s award granting ₹65,000 as compensation for the respondent-workman’s termination required interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned where the applicant establishes sufficient cause.

It applied the procedural principle that the legal representatives of a deceased party, where necessary for the effective adjudication of the pending proceedings, may be brought on record.

The main petition was examined within the supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The State’s challenge involved the alleged application of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning continuous service, but the Court ultimately declined to examine the merits because the compensation awarded was only ₹65,000.

The Court accepted the State’s explanation that it was unaware of respondent No. 1’s death and found sufficient cause for condoning the 4,856-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Since the heirs were necessary for continuation of the proceedings, the Court allowed their impleadment and directed that the necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

On the merits, although the State alleged that the workman’s absence resulted from his criminal conviction and that the Labour Court had misapplied Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court noted that the Labour Court had already found reinstatement impossible because the workman had reached superannuation and had awarded only ₹65,000 in compensation.

Considering the smallness of the amount, the Court held that it was unnecessary to enter into the merits of the dispute and dismissed the writ petition.

The application for impleadment of the legal heirs was allowed, with consequential amendment directed to be made forthwith.

The Special Civil Application was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and the Labour Court’s award of ₹65,000 was left undisturbed.

The Court clarified that the dismissal was based on the smallness of the amount and would not operate as a precedent.

The petitioner-State was directed to deposit the compensation with the respondent-workman within six weeks from the date of judgment.