Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the order, dated 8. 2000, passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in Petition No.78 of 1996. 3. It has been stated that the second respondent had joined the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor, on 179. On 2. 96, while he was on duty as the conductor of the bus in Route No.0601 from Mysore to Erode, the checking inspectors had checked the bus and had audited the accounts. At the time of the checking, 76 passengers were in the bus. However, only 74 tickets had been issued to the passengers. It was found that one of the passengers was without a ticket and another was found to be with an improper ticket. The second respondent had admitted the mistakes committed by him in not issuing the tickets, even though he had received the amounts from the passengers. The petitioner Corporation had conducted a domestic enquiry, following the principles of natural justice. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, after following the due procedures established by law. Thereafter, the petitioner Corporation had filed a petition before the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in Petition No.78 of 1996, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent Industrial Tribunal, without considering the facts and circumstances and the relevant documents filed in support of the order passed by the petitioner Corporation, had dismissed the petition. The first respondent Tribunal, had found that no passenger had been examined during the domestic enquiry to know the truth regarding the matter. Further, the first respondent Tribunal had found that the cash bag was not checked by the checking Inspector. Even though 12 documents had been marked on behalf of the petitioner Corporation as M1 to M12 and there was sufficient evidence available before the first respondent Tribunal to prove the guilt of the second respondent beyond doubt, the first respondent Tribunal had dismissed the petition refusing to grant the approval. Therefore, challenging the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal, on 8. 2000, rejecting the petition in Petition No.78 of 1996, the petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 4. Therefore, challenging the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal, on 8. 2000, rejecting the petition in Petition No.78 of 1996, the petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the wife of the second respondent who had died, on 4. 2001. Due to the death of the second respondent, his legal heirs have been brought on record, by an order of this Court, dated 12. 2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.13566 of 2002. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents 3 to 5 that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Corporation against the deceased second respondent has become infructuous due to the death of the second respondent, on 4. 2001. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, as well as the respondents 3 to 5 and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner Coproration cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the first respondent Industrial Tribunal had refused to grant the necessary approval for the order of dismissal issued by the petitioner Corporation against the second respondent employee. Further, the second respondent employee had died on 4. 2001. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5 that a claim petition has been filed on their behalf before the Labour Court, Salem, invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming the amounts due to them, as the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, it would be proper for the respondents 3 to 5 to pursue the same to get the monetary benefits that would have accrued to them on the death of the second respondent, who was an employee in the petitioner Corporation. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.