JUDGMENT Bannurmath, J This appeal is listed today for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the appeal itself is heard for final disposal, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are: 2. The appellant is the son of late Papegowda, who was a conductor in the respondent establishment. The said Papegowda (hereinafter called as ‘the Workman’) was charged, for not issuing tickets to nine passengers and not collecting fare of Rs. 1.25 each from them on 25.03.1995. On holding a departmental enquiry, ‘the Workman’ was dismissed from service on 21.03.1998 by the respondent. The dismissal order was questioned by ‘the Workman’ by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Chickmagalur and the same was registered as IDA 33/1998. After enquiry the Labour Court by its award dated 19.02.1998 has allowed the said application and has set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate ‘the Workman’ into service, to his original post with continuity of service and allowing only 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal, till the date of reinstatement. The award was questioned by the respondent in WP. 40254/1999. An interim order was passed by this Court on 02.11.1999, staying the operation of the impugned award, subject to the reinstatement of ‘the Workman’ into service. The respondent, reinstated ‘the Workman’ into service on 15.03.2000. After reinstatement, ‘the Workman’ has passed away on 30.10.2000. 3. On an application being submitted by the LR’s of ‘the Workman’ seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the respondent Corporation has appointed Sri H.P. Jagadish, as a conductor, by an order dated 10.10.2001. In pursuance thereof, he has joined duty with the respondent on 12.11.2001. Long thereafter i.e., on 17.6.2005, Writ Petition No. 40254/1999 has been allowed, by quashing the aforesaid award. Even though the sole respondent in the writ petition i.e., Sri Papegowda had passed away on 30.10.2000, which fact was well within the knowledge of the respondent Corporation, as it has granted appointment on compassionate ground to the L.R. of Papegowda, without filing any application to bring the L.R. of ‘the Workman’ on record, the respondent has obtained the order dated 17.06.2005. When the writ petition was heard and allowed, the Court has not been appraised by the writ petitioner about the death of the sole respondent. The respondent in the Writ Petition was also not represented by any counsel. 4. The respondent has issued a notice dated 22.03.2007 to Sri H.P. Jagadish, L.R. of ‘the Workman’ to show cause as to why, he should not be terminated from service and the amount paid to Sri. Papegowda, should not be recovered on the ground that the order of terminating the service of Sri. Papegowda, which was set aside by the Labour Court in the award, was quashed in the writ petition, thereby upholding the termination order passed by the Corporation against Sri Papegowda and hence there cannot be any appointment on compassionate ground nor payment of gratuity to the deceased workman. To the said notice, a reply was submitted by Sri H.P. Jagadish. Acting mechanically and without any application of mind, by an order dated 09.05.2007, the appointment of Sri H.P. Jagadish, made on compassionate ground was terminated, he was relieved from service and it was ordered that the payment of gratuity amount and leave encashment made to Sri Papegowda, to be recovered from the amount payable to Sri H.P. Jagadish. 5. Being left in wilderness, Sri H.P. Jagadish has filed five applications, in W.P.No 40254/1999. The learned Single Judge taking in to account that Sri. Papegowda was served with notice of the Writ Petition on 14.02.2000, he died on 30.10.2000, and the writ petition was disposed of on 17.06.2005 and that Sri. Papegowda was alive for about eight months after service of notice of the writ petition and for about five years no application was made by the applicant to come on record, as it has held that the applicant cannot maintain the applications in the disposed off writ petition. However, the learned single Judge has reserved the liberty to question the termination order dated 09.05.2007 issued to Sri. H.P. Jagadish in an appropriate proceeding, by filing a petition under Section 10 (4-A) of ‘the Act’. The said order was passed on 08.06.2007. In this appeal the order dated 08.06.2007 and the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.40254/1999 has been challenged. 6. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. The said order was passed on 08.06.2007. In this appeal the order dated 08.06.2007 and the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.40254/1999 has been challenged. 6. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. Sri R.G. Halesh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant would contend that the death of the sole respondent in W.P.40254/1999, was well within the knowledge of the employer i.e., petitioner in the said writ petition. The sole respondent in the writ petition having passed away on 30.10.2000, steps to bring the L.Rs of the deceased having not been taken, with the operation of law, the writ petition stood abated. Long after the death of the workman, the respondent Corporation, has obtained the order dated 17.06.2005, against a dead person and based on the same, it has taken action to terminate the employment granted to the L.R. of the deceased workman on compassionate ground and thus the action of the respondent smacks of arbitrariness, illegality and is totally high handed. Learned Counsel would contend that when the facts were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by filing the applications, the learned Single Judge by misdirecting himself has passed the order, which if allowed to stand would result in miscarriage of justice and a grave prejudice would be, caused to the L.Rs of the deceased workman. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would contend that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the order dated 08.06.2007. It was contended that in view of the order dated 17.06.2005 upholding the dismissal of the workman by the respondent Corporation, the L.R. of the deceased was not entitled either for compassionate appointment or any terminal benefits of the deceased. Hence, after issuing a show cause notice and considering the reply, the order of termination dated 09.05.2007 was passed, which it was submitted, cannot be found fault with in this appeal. Learned Counsel made submissions in support of the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The following points arise for our consideration: 1) On the passing away of the sole respondent in W.P.40254/1999 on 30.10.2000, did the writ petition abate? 2) Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the order dated 08.06.2007? 3) What relief the L.R. of the workman is entitled to? 10. 9. The following points arise for our consideration: 1) On the passing away of the sole respondent in W.P.40254/1999 on 30.10.2000, did the writ petition abate? 2) Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the order dated 08.06.2007? 3) What relief the L.R. of the workman is entitled to? 10. It is not in dispute that the termination of the workman by the respondent Corporation was set aside in the award passed by the Labour Court with a direction to reinstate the employee with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The award passed by the Labour Court was questioned by the management in W.P. 40254/1999 and the award was stayed subject to the employee being reinstated into service during the pendency of the proceedings. The employee was reinstated on 02.11.1999. After the order of reinstatement, the workman has passed away on 30.10.2000, while in service. The death was reported by the L.R’s of the deceased to the employer and an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made, considering which the respondent has appointed as L.R of the deceased workman as a conductor on 10.10.2001. These facts clearly show that the respondent Corporation was well aware of the death of the employee on 30.10.2000. It is only on account of the death of the employee, the application for compassionate appointment was considered and an appointment order was issued by it. Hence, the management which was the writ petitioner ought to have filed an applications to bring the L.Rs of the deceased on record in W.P. 40254/1999, within the time prescribed or if there were to be any delay in seeking the setting aside of the abatement and condonation of delay by filing separate applications in that regard. The workman, who was the sole respondent in the writ petition, having died on 30.10.2000, application to bring his L.R’s having not been filed by the writ petitioner, W.P. 40254/1999 has stood abated. 11. When the Court was appraised of the said facts, the learned Single Judge ought to have recalled the order dated 17.06.2005, by holding that the writ petition as having abated. 11. When the Court was appraised of the said facts, the learned Single Judge ought to have recalled the order dated 17.06.2005, by holding that the writ petition as having abated. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge that the workman was alive for eight month after the service of notice and the applicant has filed the application after five years and has not made the application within the permissible time and the applications cannot be maintained in our view is incorrect. It was for the Corporation which was the petitioner in the Writ Petition which ought to have made application to bring the L.Rs of the workman on record. In not bringing the L.Rs of the workman on record, it is the writ petition of the Corporation, which stood abated. No duty was cast on the L.Rs of the deceased workman to make the application to come on record. It is not shown that the L.Rs had the notice of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by misdirecting himself has passed the order dated 08.06.2007, which if allowed to stand would result in miscarriage of justice. Thus, we hold that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order dated 08.06.2007. 12. Without any fault of the L.R. of the deceased workman, the Corporation by acting arbitrarily, illegally and with material irregularity, has passed the order dated 9.5.2007. We were shocked to notice the action taken by the Corporation vide its order dated 9.5.2007. For no fault of the L.R of the deceased workman, his services have been terminated. The Corporation is at fault in not taking steps to bring the L.R’s of the deceased workman on record of the writ petition. It did not lie in the hands of the Corporation to take any action against the person, to whom an appointment on compassionate ground was granted. The Corporation is at fault in not taking steps to bring the L.R’s of the deceased workman on record of the writ petition. It did not lie in the hands of the Corporation to take any action against the person, to whom an appointment on compassionate ground was granted. Even though the learned Single Judge has held that the order dated 09.05.2007 can be questioned by filing application under Section 10 (4-A) of ‘the Act’ , in our view as the action of the respondent is wholly illegal and is without any authority of law, instead of allowing the multiplicity of the litigation, having heard the learned Counsel for the Corporation, we deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 9.5.2007, passed by the Corporation, copy of which is produced at Annexure-R 5, whereby not only the services of the L.R of the workman, appointed on compassionate ground was terminated but certain recovery was also contemplated. To take such a course of action, the Corporation has no justification of whatsoever nature. The action of the Corporation smacks of arbitrariness. It is inconceivable for the Corporation to have resorted to such a course of action. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, in the interest of Justice, we mould the reliefs and order as follows: i) Writ Petition No.40254/1999 is held as abated for not taking steps to bring the L.Rs of the deceased workman on record. ii) Consequent to the effect of abatement of the writ petition, the order dated 17.06.2005 stands set aside, as there cannot be any order passed against a dead person. iii) In view of the extraordinary facts and circumstances, we quash the order dated 9.5.2007 terminating the services of Sri H.P. Jagadish, appointed on compassionate ground, on the death of the workman. iv) We direct the respondent-Corporation to reinstate Sri H.P. Jagadish, into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Writ Appeal is allowed in the above terms.