Judgment - This writ petition is directed against the award dated 17-8-1990 passed by the Labour Court Dehradun (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition), whereby the Labour Court has held that the services of workman Prem Singh, the original petitioner, were rightly and legally terminated since 12-04-1988. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner died on 30-09-2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that now, under the changed circumstances, the heirs of the petitioners cannot be reinstated in service even if the order is set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the workman Prem Singh was guilty of misconduct and he had misbehaved with his superior officer and hurled abuses in the office during of course of employment and tried to commit Marpit. The charges were fully proved against the workman in domestic enquiry, therefore, he was not entitled to any lesser punishment. The Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order holding the termination order passed by the employer to be proper and legal. 5. The Apex Court in the case of L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and Another[2006 . Supreme Court Cases (L & S) Page 278] has held that so far as punishment is concerned, suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd II N.B. Narawade [(2005) 3 SCC 134J while referring to the cases of Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Adhikanand Sahu [(1960) 1 LLJ 518 (Supreme Court)] and New Shorrock Mills II Maheshbhai T. Rao [(1996) 6 SCC 590J, the Apex Court has held that "In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such abuse language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to hereinabove." 6. In view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of L.K. Verma (supra), I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. 7. In view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of L.K. Verma (supra), I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statutory provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall prevail over the Rules framed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. for conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel is that if a statutory right has accrued to the workman, the same cannot be impaired by reason of a rule that does not have the force of a statute. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of "Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others [2007 (112) FLR, Page 196J.ln that case, the appellant was charge-sheeted on the allegation of shortage of stock of coal in Lodhna area of respondent no. 1. During pendency of departmental proceeding, the appellant was allowed to retire. He applied for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was denied. He then filed an application before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad for payment of gratuity. Notices were issued. The authority concerned filed reply contending that the gratuity amount payable to the appellant had been withheld for the purposes of making of adjustment. Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, order of dismissal was passed against the appellant by order dated 57 -2000. In this premise the Apex Court has held that the forfeiture of gratuity was not proper and valid. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. In view law laid down in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) if any legal benefits had accrued to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the same shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits and is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount which was legally due to the deceased workman Prem Singh including that of Gratuity from the Corporation shall be paid to his legal heirs. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits and is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount which was legally due to the deceased workman Prem Singh including that of Gratuity from the Corporation shall be paid to his legal heirs. The legal heirs of the deceased Prem Singh may make a representation to the Corporation for payment of legal dues accrued to the workman Prem Singh, for which he was entitled and the Authority concerned shall take decision for payment of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of making such representation by the legal heirs of the deceased workman Prem Singh. 9. All applications stand disposed of.