JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B.N. Singh for respondent No. 3. 2. Sri B.N. Singh stated that the workman concerned, respondent No. 3, died on 1.12.1996 and this fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by misc. application No. 54214 of 1997, requesting for dismissal of writ petition since his legal heirs were not brought on record by the petitioner. He also pointed out that employer was already informed about this fact by letter dated 1.1.1997 a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 2 to the aforesaid misc. application. Hence, no relief can be granted to petitioner against a person who has died on 1.12.1996 and his legal heirs are not on record. 3. I find substance in submission. 4. Moreover, having considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I find that it is evident that the question whether the workman concerned seized to work rightly on 31.1.1984 has been considered by Labour Court by recording a finding of fact that date of birth of workman being 1933, he could not have been retired in 1984 since he would not have completed 60 years of age. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that workman admitted that he commenced work in 1942 and taking his date of birth of 1933, he was minor at the time of engagement in 1942. Before the enforcement of Constitution of India, there was no restriction for engagement of a minor and that no minor could have been engaged with petitioner-company has not been shown by placing any material on record to show that petitioner’s company was under obligation by any statutory provision at the relevant time not to engage any minor. In absence of any restriction for engagement of a person below 18 years, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Labour Court in the impugned award. 6. In view of above, the award impugned in writ petition warrants no interference. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. —————