JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the award dated 19.1.2002, passed by learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that respondent No.2 workman filed a statement of claim before respondent No.1 stating therein that in the year 1976 he was appointed as a driver and continued to work there. The respondent No.2 remained ill, as a result of which he joined the duty on 4.1.1998 but the present petitioner did not allow him to join the duty and the services of the respondent No.2 were terminated w.e.f. 26.3.1986. The respondent No.2 further stated in the statement of claim that his services were terminated by the petitioner without holding enquiry or giving him charge-sheet and submitted that such termination amounts to a retrenchment in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947'). During pendency of the statement of claim, respondent No.2 died on 3.7.1998 and an application was moved by the widow of the workman Smt. Kamla Devi that her husband is survived by her, Kana Ram s/o Nathu Ram and Rakesh s/o Nathu Ram. After hearing, the learned Labour Court allowed the application on 2.12.2001. The present petitioner submitted reply to the statement of claim and stated that the respondent No.2 remained absent continuously without leave. The petitioner sought reply from the respondent No.2 of absence but no satisfactory reply was given by the respondent No.2. The petitioner further mentioned in the reply that petitioner also published an advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika on 16.5.1989 for rejoining of respondent No.2 duty Certain other facts were also mentioned in the reply filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, decided the statement of claim filed by respondent No.2 vide award dated 19.1.2002 observed that as the legal representatives of respondent No.2 workman submitted a death certificate, according to which he died on 3.7.1998. The learned Labour Court further observed that the respondent No.2 cannot be reinstated in service but his legal representatives have been impleaded as party, because of this reason his legal representatives are entitled of all the salary and emoluments upto the date of death of respondent No.2 workman i.e. 3.7.1998, which the deceased workman was entitled. 4. The learned Labour Court further observed that the respondent No.2 cannot be reinstated in service but his legal representatives have been impleaded as party, because of this reason his legal representatives are entitled of all the salary and emoluments upto the date of death of respondent No.2 workman i.e. 3.7.1998, which the deceased workman was entitled. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the petitioner-employer preferred the present petition before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the above award reveal that the respondent No.2 died during pendency of the statement of claim and his legal representatives moved an application for taking on record and the learned Labour Court allowed the application moved by respondent No.2. Thus, they are entitled for the above benefit upto the death of respondent No.2 workman. 7. In my considered view, the award dated 19.1.2002 passed by learned Labour Court, Jaipur is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for by this Court in the above award. 8. The writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award dated 19.1.2002 passed by learned Labour court-I, Jaipur in case No. LCR 502/1990 is maintained.Petition Dismissed. *******