JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1. 2. In view of peculiar facts of present case, it is relevant to mention, at this stage, that, on previous hearing, i.e. on 2.3.2016, this Court was informed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not traceable and having regard to the said fact, earlier, an order was passed by the Court whereby the wife of the respondent was directed to be impleaded as party respondent to this petition. It was also submitted that the Court had passed the order requiring the petitioner to employ wife of the respondent instead of the respondent who was not traceable and accordingly the respondent's wife was reinstated in light of the order dated 4.8.2006. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 10.4.2006 which reads thus:-- "M.H. Mills and Industries Limited, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 20.5.2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, in Appeal (IC) No. 100 of 2003. Heard Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner. He stated that by the impugned order the appeal of the company has been rejected and further directed cost of the application be also given to the respondent. It has been stated that earlier the Labour Court has already directed reinstatement with 75% backwages of Unit No. 2 of the respondent, though Unit No. 2 has already been closed down by the petitioner in this behalf. It has been submitted that the Industrial Court has not considered the evidence produced by the company that Unit No. 2 is already closed and therefore there is no question of granting reinstatement to the petitioner in this behalf. Hence, Notice returnable on 24.4.2006. D.S., permitted." 2.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order dated 27.7.2006 which reads thus:-- "1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of respondent y workman, the wife of respondent y workman Smt. Alkaben Gunvantrai Vichchi remained personally present before this Court as his husband is not traceable and left the house since long. 2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of respondent y workman, the wife of respondent y workman Smt. Alkaben Gunvantrai Vichchi remained personally present before this Court as his husband is not traceable and left the house since long. 2. In light of this special circumstances of the case, this Court has suggested to the petitioner either to pay wages similar to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the pendency of petition or to give employment to the wife of the respondent workman in the mills company. 3. The suggestion of this Court has been accepted by the petitioner mills and on that basis, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the wife of the respondent workman will be taken in service with effect from 1st August 2006 and she has to report on 1st August 2006 before the petitioner. 4. In view of this, matter is adjourned for further order on 4th August 2006." 2.2 The said order dated 27.7.2006 was followed by above mentioned order dated 4.8.2006, which reads thus:-- "1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 27th July 2006, the wife of respondent y workman has been employed by petitioner with effect from 1st August 2006 and she is working. 2. In view of these facts and questions involved in the present petition which required detail examination, hence, Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para- 16(B) is granted on condition that petitioner shall continue the employment of the wife of respondent-workman till present Special Civil Application is finally decided by this Court and meanwhile, without permission of this Court, petitioner will not terminate the service of wife of respondent-workman. However, in case of any difficulty, it is open for the petitioner to file necessary application before this Court." 3. It appears that after the wife of the respondent was reinstated, probably, she also left the service. 3.1 The petitioner claimed before the Court that when the respondent's wife left the service, the petitioner paid the dues to the respondent's wife but kept the challenge against the impugned order alive. 3.2 This aspect came to be recorded by the Court in the order dated 19.6.2015 which reads thus:-- "1. 3.1 The petitioner claimed before the Court that when the respondent's wife left the service, the petitioner paid the dues to the respondent's wife but kept the challenge against the impugned order alive. 3.2 This aspect came to be recorded by the Court in the order dated 19.6.2015 which reads thus:-- "1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2006, which read as under; "1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of respondent y workman, the wife of respondent y workman Smt. Alkaben Gunvantrai Vichchi remained personally present before this Court as his husband is not traceable and left the house since long. 2. In light of this special circumstances of the case, this Court has suggested to the petitioner either to pay wages similar to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the pendency of petition or to give employment to the wife of the respondent workman in the mills company. 3. The suggestion of this Court has been accepted by the petitioner mills and on that basis, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the wife of the respondent workman will be taken in service with effect from 1st August 2006 and she has to report on 1st August 2006 before the petitioner. 4. In view of this, matter is adjourned for further order on 4th August 2006." 2. He also places on record 7 documents indicating that pursuant to the aforesaid order the wife of the respondent was offered employment and even thereafter she left and the dues are paid, however, challenge to the main matter survives, or else the Company will be saddled with other liability. 3. In that view of the matter, his request for adjournment is accepted. Put up on 06.07.2015, so that appropriate instruction could be obtained and matter could be put to an end." 4. In view of above submissions by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed below quoted order on 2.3.2016:-- "Office is directed to issue Notice to the respondent Mr. Gunvantrai M. Vichhi at the address mentioned in the cause title. Another Notice at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition shall be issued in the name of the wife of said respondent, i.e. Smt. Alkaben Gunvantrai Vichhi. Gunvantrai M. Vichhi at the address mentioned in the cause title. Another Notice at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition shall be issued in the name of the wife of said respondent, i.e. Smt. Alkaben Gunvantrai Vichhi. Two Notices to be issued separately and to be forwarded by Registered Post A.D. By the said Notice, the respondent and the wife of the respondent should be instructed to remain present on the next date of hearing. For the said purpose, further hearing of the petition is scheduled for 17.3.2016. The said date may be mentioned in the intimation to be given to the said two persons, i.e. the respondent and his wife. The cost of the process shall be borne by the petitioner." 5. In response to the said order dated 2.3.2016, today, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent No. 1.1 - wife of the respondent. 5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 submitted that the respondent's wife i.e. respondent No. 1.1 is present in the Court. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1, identified the lady who is present in the Court as respondent No. 1.1. 5.2 Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1, further submitted that though at earlier stage, the Court was informed that the respondent is not traceable, now, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 has informed the Court that the concerned workman i.e. respondent died on 30.8.2014. 5.3 A photocopy of the death certificate issued on 21.10.2014 is tendered on record. 5.4 In view of the said submission, it emerges that the respondent No. 1 has died and the respondent No. 1.1 is the legal representative of the respondent No. 1. 6. In view of the facts, which are disclosed by learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 today during hearing of present petition, the situation which emerges is that in view of the sad demise of the respondent No. 1.1, now, the direction passed by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in the appeal so far as the obligation to reinstate the workman i.e. respondent No. 1 does not survive. 7. From the record, it has emerged that the learned Labour Court had passed judgment dated 22.1.1996 below Eexh. 58 in T Application No. 667 of 1987 which was filed by present respondent. 7. From the record, it has emerged that the learned Labour Court had passed judgment dated 22.1.1996 below Eexh. 58 in T Application No. 667 of 1987 which was filed by present respondent. 7.1 The learned Labour Court allowed the said T Application and directed present petitioner vide said judgment dated 22.1.1996 to reinstate present respondent with 75% backwages. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 22.1.1996, present petitioner had filed Appeal (IC) No. 100 of 2003. 8.1 The learned Labour Court adjudicated the said appeal and after hearing the parties rejected the appeal vide judgment dated 20.5.2005. 8.2 Consequently, the judgment by the learned Labour Court stood confirmed. The said decision also confirmed the obligation to pay 75% backwages. 9. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment dated 26.2.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13748 of 2004. 9.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts of the said case are almost similar to the facts of present case, inasmuch as, according to the facts of the cited case, the respondent employee was not available and that therefore, the notice was served by substituted service and the Court accepted the offer/suggestion of the petitioner that the amount due and payable to the concerned workman by virtue of the award of the learned Labour Court may be deposited in the Court and the heir/legal representative of the respondent workman may be allowed to withdraw the deposited amount. 9.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by accepting the said offer/suggestion, the Court passed the order dated 26.2.2016 and disposed of the petition. The said order dated 26.2.2016 reads thus:-- "1.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No.21 of 2001 dated 24/12/2003, petitioner employer - management has preferred the present petition. 2.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent is deemed to have been served by substituted service of notice by publishing in the local news paper, however, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 3.00. Today when the present petition is taken up for further hearing, Mr. 2.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent is deemed to have been served by substituted service of notice by publishing in the local news paper, however, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 3.00. Today when the present petition is taken up for further hearing, Mr. S.I. NanavatI, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner management has fairly stated at the bar that the new management has already settled the dispute with other workmen and therefore, the petitioner management does not press the present petition. He has stated at the bar that to show their bonafides, the petitioners shall deposit the entire amount due and payable under the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 21 of 2001 dated 24/12/2003 and order passed by the Labour Court in T. Application No.463 of 1989 dated 19/1/2001, with the registry of this Hon'ble Court within a period of four weeks. He has requested that the registry may be directed to invest the same in the Bank in Fixed Deposit so that ultimately if the respondent workman and/or his heirs are found out, the same can be paid to him/them on proper identification and verification. 4.00. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as not pressed. As stated by Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner recorded hereinabove, let the petitioner deposit the entire amount due and payable to the respondent workman as per the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 21 of 2001 dated 24/12/2003 and order passed by the Labour Court in T. Application No. 463 of 1989 dated 19/1/2001, with the registry of this Court within a period of four weeks. On such deposit, the registry is directed to invest the same in Fixed Deposit initially for a period of two years and with a direction that as and when the respondent appears and in case of death of the respondent workman his heirs appears, the same can be paid to him/them with accrued interest thereon, on proper verification and identification. With this, present petition is dismissed as not pressed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 10. With this, present petition is dismissed as not pressed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 10. In light of the said order dated 26.2.2016 and in view of the facts disclosed by learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 today that the respondent No. 1 died on 30.8.2014, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will deposit the amount payable by virtue of the order passed by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Industrial Tribunal within four weeks from today in the registry of this Court and the said amount may be initially invested in the fixed deposit and the heir/legal representative of the respondent No. 1 may thereafter take out appropriate application for withdrawal of the amount. 10.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if such application is moved, then, the petitioner will not have any objection in payment/disbursement of the amount to the heir/legal representation of the respondent No. 1. 10.2 The said suggestion is acceptable to learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 as well. 10.3 The respondent No. 1.1 who is present in the Court and is identified by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 also submitted that she does not have any objection if such course of action is followed and she consents for such order/direction. Therefore, following order is passed:-- "[a] in view of the fact disclosed by learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1 that the respondent No. 1 died on 30.8.2014 now, the direction to reinstate the respondent No. 1 does not survive. To that extent, the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by learned Industrial Tribunal now does not survive. [b] The amount payable by virtue of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1996 in T Application No. 667 of 1987 shall be deposited by the petitioner in the registry of this Court within four weeks from today. To that extent, the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by learned Industrial Tribunal now does not survive. [b] The amount payable by virtue of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1996 in T Application No. 667 of 1987 shall be deposited by the petitioner in the registry of this Court within four weeks from today. [c] Immediately after the amount is deposited, the office will invest the said amount in fixed deposit with a Nationalized/PSU bank in fixed deposit initially for period of six months and if so required, the said fixed deposit may be renewed for further period of six months until the application for withdrawal of the amount is filed by the heirs/legal representative of the respondent No. 1 and is decided by appropriate order. [d] After the amount is deposited, the petitioner will intimate (in writing) Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1, that the amount is deposited in the office. [e] Thereafter, it will be open to the heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 to file appropriate application with necessary evidence to demonstrate and establish that the applicants are the heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 and except the applicants, there are no other heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No. 1, with a request to permit withdrawal of the amount deposited by the petitioner. [f] The office will satisfy itself about such evidence. If necessary, it would be open to the registry to direct the applicants/heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 to take out succession certificate or such other document as may be considered necessary and after being satisfied and after examining the proof of identify, appropriate action to release/disburse the amount in favour of the applicants may be taken. The amount shall be paid to the heirs/legal representatives after such verification and upon being satisfied about the claimants and identity of the claimants, directly in the Bank account of the claimants (details whereof will be supplied by the claimants/applicants to the office). [g] it is also clarified that the respondent No. 1.1 was appointed by the petitioner in view of and pursuant to the order dated 27.7.2006. [g] it is also clarified that the respondent No. 1.1 was appointed by the petitioner in view of and pursuant to the order dated 27.7.2006. In this view of the matter, if there is any claim for wages for the period after the date of the award until the respondent No. 1.1 was appointed by the petitioner, it will be open to the respondent No. 1.1 to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before appropriate forum as may be advised." With aforesaid observations, direction and clarification, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1, submitted that he will enter his appearance (Vakalatnama) during the course of the day today. Present petition accordingly stands disposed of.