S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in r. MESHWAR MANHI Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SANGRAMGARH colliery A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 1176 and submitted that hte order passed by the tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. ( 3 ) THE factual matrix in the case before the Supreme Court is entirely different from the fact of the instance case. In that case the concerned workman was already inflicted with punishment and an industrial dispute was raised by him. When the matter was pending adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal the concerned workman died. Thus, the question that had arisen before the supreme Court was whether the industrial adjudication could be proceeded with further by substituting the legal representatives of the deceased workman in his place. The Apex Court answered the question in affirmative. But in the instant case, the delinquent employee died on 11-9-95 and by the date of his death the departmental enquiry against him was not concluded and that he was not inflicted with any punishment. Therefore, the question of continuation of departmental enquiry against his Lrs. By substituting them in his place would not arise. If a contrary view is taken in this regard it would grossly be violative of principles of natural justice. The writ petition is, therefore , dismissed. No costs.