JUDGMENT : (Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 17 of 2021) 1. The matter is taken up in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing substitution application. The application accompanied by a composite affidavit. Cause shown for the delay in filing the substitution application as asserted in the composite affidavit is sufficient. Delay in filing the substitution application is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. (Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.18 of 2021) 3. The matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1. This is an application for substitution and is supported by a composite affidavit. The substitution application has been occasioned by the death of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary. The composite affidavit filed in support of application for substitution asserts that the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary died on 12.02.2021 during the pendency of the writ petition. The application for substitution has been moved by the legal heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) to be substituted in his place, as described in the prayer clause of the substitution application. The substitution application is allowed. Let the legal heirs/legal representatives of respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) as described in the prayer clause of the substitution application, be substituted in his place. Words "died during the pendency of the petition" shall be transcribed after the name of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased). Substitution be carried out by learned counsel for the applicant within a period of two weeks and shall be confirmed by the Office. The name of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) shall be typed in Red Ink on separate page. Similarly, the words "died during the pendency of the petition", after the name of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased), shall also be transcribed in Red Ink on a separate page. The name of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) shall be typed in Red Ink on separate page. Similarly, the words "died during the pendency of the petition", after the name of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased), shall also be transcribed in Red Ink on a separate page. Both the papers, bearing the name of the legal heirs/legal representatives of respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased), and the words "Died during the pendency of the writ petition", shall be affixed to the cause title. Office to confirm the substitution in the above said manner. (Order on Writ Petition) 4. The matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1. 5. The petitioners have assailed the impugned award dated 27.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.1/Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur. 6. Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the authorized representative who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the petitioners withdrew from the proceedings with leave of the Court on 29.08.2012, without intimation to the petitioners. The impugned award passed by the learned court below/Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur was ex-parte and rendered in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent No.2-workman had superannuated from service after attaining the 58 years of age. His services were not terminated. Terminal benefits were disturbed to the respondent-workman. 7. Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1 contends that the petitioner-employer was not liable to be noticed after the authorized representative had withdrawn from the proceedings. He defends the aforesaid impugned award. Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1 further contends that the respondent No.2 died during the pendency of the writ petition. The legal heirs of the respondent No.2/workman-Subedar Chaudhary (since deceased) are entitled to the benefits. He found entitlements under the impugned award dated 27.11.2012. Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1 further contends that the respondent No.2 died during the pendency of the writ petition. The legal heirs of the respondent No.2/workman-Subedar Chaudhary (since deceased) are entitled to the benefits. He found entitlements under the impugned award dated 27.11.2012. It is contended by Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/1 that the services of the respondent No.2/workman-Subedar Chaudhary (since deceased) were terminated without adopting the procedure not known to law. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The authorized representative of the petitioners withdrew from the case with leave of the learned labour court. However, the authorized representative did not intimate the petitioner-employer about his desire to withdraw from the case. The learned court below did not ascertain whether the petitioners have been intimated about the decision of the authorized representative to withdraw from the case. Further, the order-sheet discloses that no notices were issued to the petitioners after the authorized representative withdrew from the case. The petitioners were unaware that the authorized representative had withdrawn from the case. Since no notices were issued, they went unrepresented in the proceedings thereafter. After the authorized representative withdrew from the case, the learned court below proceeded ex parte to the petitioners and passed the impugned award dated 27.11.2012. The pleadings in the writ petition in this regard have also not been traversed in the counter affidavit. The impugned award dated 27.11.2012 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. This Court finds that the learned court below/Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur, adopted a procedure not known to law while passing the impugned award dated 27.11.2012 which caused miscarriage of justice. 11. The impugned award dated 27.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.1-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur, published on 12.03.2013 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 12. The Court initially minded was to remand the matter for fresh consideration. However, in view of long pendency and admitted facts prolonging the litigation will not be in the interests of justice. 13. At this stage, it would be instructive to extract Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under: "Section 4. 12. The Court initially minded was to remand the matter for fresh consideration. However, in view of long pendency and admitted facts prolonging the litigation will not be in the interests of justice. 13. At this stage, it would be instructive to extract Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under: "Section 4. Payment of gratuity-(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, - (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement." 14. A cumulative consideration of the above materials establishes the fact of superannuation of the workman in 2006, upon attaining the age of 58 years. The respondent No.2-workman in the witness box also stated that on 30.11.2011, he had attained 71 years of age. The respondent No.2-workman in his testimony before the learned court below stated that at the time of termination of his services, he was paid various dues like gratuity, bonus, cumulative leave and his wages due till that date. The benefits so disbursed to the respondent No.2-workman are in the nature of the terminal dues that was paid at the time of superannuation. The respondent No.2-workman has since expired. The establishment in which the respondent No.2-workman was engaged had closed down in the year 2007. 15. The amount deposited by the petitioner-employer shall be forthwith disbursed in favour of the petitioner-employer forthwith. 16. The writ petition is allowed.