JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner claims to be a small co-operative milk society at village level. The present respondents who are contesting the matter are the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased workman who appears to have expired during the pendency of the lis. It is the case of the petitioner society that the deceased workman was an elected member of the managing committee of the petitioner and was holding the post of Vice Chairman. By a resolution dated 1st October 1980 he got himself appointed as Secretary of the petitioner after resigning from the managing committee of the society. He was working as Secretary from 1st October 1980 till 5th October 1982. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the year 1982, the Government Auditor had submitted his report recording serious act of defalcation and misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- by the deceased workman during his tenure as the Secretary of the petitioner. It appears that a show cause notice dated 1-8-1982 was issued to him for the aforesaid allegations of misappropriation. It appears that by an order dated 5th October 1982 the petitioner society had terminated the said employee from employment. It further appears that the deceased workman had raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of termination and praying for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The State Government referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both the parties filed their respective pleadings. It appears that on 7-11-1986, the deceased workman expired and his legal heirs were brought on record before the Labour Court. During the course of proceedings the legal heirs declined to adduce any oral evidence and had relied upon the deposition of the deceased workman. The petitioner society had examined one witness. 2.By an award dated 24-5-1994, the learned Judge of the Labour Court was pleased to allow the reference partly, holding that the deceased workman was terminated without any enquiry and therefore, his legal heirs were entitled to get the benefits of full backwages from the date of termination till his death. He, therefore, directed the petitioner to deposit full backwages from the date of termination till the date of his death i.e. 7-11-1993. He, therefore, directed the petitioner to deposit full backwages from the date of termination till the date of his death i.e. 7-11-1993. It appears that the learned Judge has committed grave factual error in respect of the death of the workman and this is a very material mistake for the purpose of computation of backwages. The deceased workman and appears to have expired on 7-11-1986 as averred in the petition. This fact is confirmed from the facts mentioned by the learned Judge in para 5 that on 23-9-1986 the deceased workman was under cross-examination and the matter was adjourned to 15-12-1986 on that day it appears that the deceased workman was reported to have expired before that date and therefore his evidence remained incomplete. In this background, the learned trial Judge was totally wrong in directing the petitioner society to deposit backwages till 7-11-1993. It is possible that instead of writing 7-11-1986 the learned Judge has without bothering to check up facts has directed the backwages to be computed till 7-11-1993 or it may be a typographical mistake also. It is however, clear that the learned Judge contemplated payment of full backwages till the date of the death of the workman which is 7-11-1986. 3.The impugned award cannot be sustained in law. It is an admitted position that the deceased workman was terminated for the reason of his having committed misappropriation of petitioner's funds to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. It is also an admitted position that the termination did not precede the enquiry. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner society had prayed for an opportunity of proving misconduct and justifying its action to terminate the deceased. As a matter of course, the Labour Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the misconduct and justify its action of termination of the deceased. The petitioner society appears to have sought specifically for such an opportunity but the same was denied by the Labour Court on the ground that the deceased workman had expired and therefore, it would not be justified to give opportunity to the petitioner to prove the misconduct against him. Though the workman had expired during the pendency of the adjudication, the dispute was being contested by his legal heirs. Though the workman had expired during the pendency of the adjudication, the dispute was being contested by his legal heirs. In the circumstances, if the order of termination is held to be illegal and improper, there will not be any relief of reinstatement of the deceased. However, the legal heirs would be entitled to get the monetory benefits arising from such a finding. In these circumstances, the petitioner society was fully justified to pray for an opportunity to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court and to justify its action by adducing sufficient evidence and material before the Labour Court. In case, they succeed in proving the misconduct of the deceased workman, no reinstatement and backwages would be required to be paid by the society. In the present case, the petitioner society wanted to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court by producing such evidence and material to show that the deceased workman was guilty of misconduct and was not entitled to get any reliefs of reinstatement and backwages. If that is so, the legal heirs would also not get the benefit of backwages. The Labour Court has committed a grave error of law by not affording an opportunity to the petitioner society to produce such evidence and material before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct and to justify its action of termination of the deceased. It was thereafter alone that the Labour Court could have decided the question of consequential reliefs arising therefrom. If the petitioner succeeds in proving the misconduct and justifying its action, the legal heirs of the deceased would not get any benefit from the adjudication and if the society fails in proving the misconduct and justifying its action, in that case, the Labour Court would have to decide the quantum of backwages which would be payable to the legal heirs in the place of deceased workman. Even the relief of grant of full backwages could not have been granted mechanically. Both the parties would be entitled to adduce such evidence and material in support of their respective claims in respect of the backwages. The petitioner society would be entitled to prove its case that the deceased workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum from the date of termination till the date of the death of deceased. The legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to rebut the said evidence. The petitioner society would be entitled to prove its case that the deceased workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum from the date of termination till the date of the death of deceased. The legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to rebut the said evidence. 4.In the present circumstances, the matter will have to be remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh trial. I, therefore, quash and set aside the award dated 24-5-1994 and remand the dispute back to the Labour Court for fresh trial by giving opportunity to the petitioner society to produce such relevant evidence and material to prove the alleged misconduct against the deceased workman and to justify its action of termination of the deceased workman from the employment. The Labour Court will also give an opportunity to the petitioner society to produce such material to enable the Labour Court to depart from normal rules of full backwages in case it fails to justify its action of termination. Needless to say that the Labour Court shall afford equal opportunity to both the parties. Since the dispute is of 1983, the Labour Court shall dispose of the reference within a period of 6 months from the receipt of writ from this Court. 5.In the result the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Rule is made absolute with no costs. Matter remanded back for fresh trial. -----