Arbitration Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Withdrawal of petitions – Revival by Supreme Court – Land owners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 had withdrawn their Section 34 petitions following High Court judgment declaring Sections 3G and 3J unconstitutional – Supreme Court subsequently stayed the High Court judgment – Fresh petitions barred by limitation under Section 34(3) – Held: To avoid grave injustice and remedilessness, Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and set aside the withdrawal order – Section 34 petitions restored to their original stage [Paras 1–4].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete justice – Exercise of plenary powers – Supreme Court found that withdrawal of arbitral challenges occurred due to an intervening High Court judgment later stayed by Supreme Court – Applicants would otherwise suffer irreparable prejudice – Held: Article 142 power rightly invoked to revive proceedings and restore status quo ante [Paras 2–4].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Sections 3G and 3J – Arbitral mechanism – Competent authority and notified arbitrators – Court noted that arbitration under Section 3G(5) is conducted by executive officers such as Collectors/Commissioners lacking judicial training and adequate time – Such mechanism raises concerns in adjudication of complex compensation issues [Paras 5–6].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Comparative statutory regimes – Supreme Court contrasted remedies available under the National Highways Act, 1956 with those under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held: Land owners under the 1956 Act form a disadvantaged class without intelligible differentia, leading to apparent inequality in violation of Article 300-A [Paras 7–9].

Legislative Policy – Infrastructure development versus property rights – While acknowledging the need for expeditious highway development, Supreme Court observed that parity in compensation determination mechanisms can coexist with speedy acquisition – Court urged reconsideration of the statutory framework to ensure fairness without undermining national infrastructure goals [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Restraint – Legislative domain – Supreme Court refrained from striking down provisions at this stage and left the matter to legislative wisdom – Attorney General requested to examine the issue – Registry directed to forward order to Attorney General and Solicitor General – Interim orders continued [Paras 12–16].

Decision: Interlocutory Applications allowed – Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani set aside – All Section 34 petitions revived and to proceed from the stage of withdrawal – Matters posted for further consideration on 21.04.2026 – Interim orders to continue.

Service Law – Drug Inspector / Drug Control Officer – Qualifications for Appointment – Central vs State Rule-making Power – Doctrine of Occupied Field – Rule 49, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – State Rules prescribing experience as essential qualification – Invalid – Parliament under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has expressly conferred exclusive power on the Central Government to prescribe qualifications of Inspectors – Rule 49 prescribes educational qualifications for appointment and experience only for authorisation to inspect manufacture of Schedule C drugs – State Governments lack competence to elevate such experience into a mandatory eligibility condition for initial appointment – Field fully occupied by Central legislation – State Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 or under State service statutes cannot override or supplement Rule 49 – Held: State-prescribed experience requirement ultra vires the D&C Act and Drug Rules [Paras 23–56].

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso to Rule 49, Drugs Rules – Nature and Scope – Experience not a condition of eligibility for appointment – Proviso merely carves out a class of Inspectors authorised to inspect manufacture of Schedule C substances – Experience contemplated post-appointment and for limited functional authorisation – Cannot be read as minimum or essential qualification for recruitment – Any such reading would amount to rewriting statutory rules – Affirmed views of Allahabad High Court (Kuldeep Singh) and Delhi High Court (Nidhi Pandey) [Paras 31–41, 53–55].

Constitutional Law – Article 309 – Limits of Executive Rule-making – Central Statute occupying field – Rule-making under proviso to Article 309 is subject to existing legislation – Once Parliament enacts a law and delegates rule-making power, executive power under Article 309 stands displaced – Doctrine of occupied field applies – Rules framed by Governor or State under Article 309 cannot supersede rules framed under Central statute – Relied on A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka [Paras 42–45].

Concurrent List – Drugs and Poisons (Entry 19, List III) – Pre-Constitution legislation – Article 372 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act enacted under Section 103, Government of India Act, 1935 with provincial consent – Continued in force post-Constitution under Article 372 – In absence of State amendment to the Act, States cannot legislate indirectly by service rules on matters expressly governed by Central law – Central Rules prevail [Paras 24–30, 46].

Distinction from S. Satyapal Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. – Motor Vehicles Act empowered Centre to prescribe only “minimum qualifications” leaving scope for States to prescribe higher qualifications – Drugs and Cosmetics Act contains no such latitude – Central Government alone empowered to prescribe qualifications of Inspectors – Judgment held inapplicable [Paras 47–49].

Haryana and Karnataka Recruitment Processes – Consequences – Advertisements prescribing experience as essential qualification quashed – Selection processes based on such criteria unsustainable – Directions issued for re-drawing merit lists strictly in accordance with Rule 49 of Drug Rules – Experience to be ignored for eligibility [Paras 57–69].

Relief and Directions – Moulding of Relief – Article 142 – Conditional appointees in Haryana protected subject to placement in revised merit list – If falling within merit, to continue with consequential benefits – If not, State may continue them on supernumerary posts without affecting advertised vacancies – Karnataka PSC directed to redo selection list and appointments accordingly – Timelines fixed for compliance [Paras 70–71].

Decision: Appeals by State of Haryana and State of Karnataka dismissed – Appeal by Parveen Kumar (Diary No. 1909/2024) allowed – State-prescribed experience as essential qualification for appointment of Drug Inspector / Drug Control Officer declared ultra vires – Public Service Commissions directed to redraw merit lists strictly as per Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Appointments to follow accordingly.

Service Law – Army Pension – Dismissal by Court Martial – Forfeiture of Pension – Distinction between Commissioned Officers and JCOs – Respondent, a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), dismissed from service in 1967 pursuant to General Court Martial – No specific order passed at the time of dismissal regarding forfeiture of pensionary benefits – Armed Forces Tribunal allowed claim for pension relying on Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India – Held: Regulation 113(a) of Pension Regulations, 1961 applies to JCOs and provides for automatic forfeiture of pension and gratuity on dismissal – No separate or specific order of forfeiture required – AFT erred in applying Regulation 16(a), which governs Commissioned Officers only [Paras 4, 6, 9–11, 14].

Pension Regulations – Regulation 16(a) vs Regulation 113(a) – Applicability – Regulation 16(a) falling under Chapter II applies exclusively to Commissioned Officers – Regulation 113(a) applies to JCOs, other ranks and enrolled non-combatants – As per Regulation 113(a), dismissal under the Army Act ipso facto renders the individual ineligible for pension or gratuity, subject only to discretionary power of the President in exceptional cases – Clarified and reaffirmed in Union of India v. Subedar Ram Narain [Paras 9–11, 15].

Armed Forces Tribunal – Error of Law – Reliance on Inapplicable Precedent – Tribunal relied on Major G.S. Sodhi, which dealt with a Commissioned Officer governed by Regulation 16(a) – Said precedent held inapplicable to JCOs – Tribunal’s direction granting pensionary benefits to dismissed JCO held legally unsustainable [Paras 6, 15–16].

Equitable Relief – Recovery of Amount Already Paid – Delay in Appeal – Death of Respondent – Appeal filed with considerable delay and during pendency, arrears of pension paid to respondent pursuant to AFT’s order – Respondent died during pendency of appeal – Though Tribunal’s order set aside on merits, Supreme Court directed that amounts already paid shall not be recovered, balancing equities and avoiding undue hardship to legal heirs [Paras 12, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders dated 30.04.2012 and 13.06.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set aside – Direction issued that amounts already paid to the respondent pursuant to Tribunal’s orders shall not be recovered – Pending applications disposed of.

Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Upheld (with interpretation) – The Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval for inquiry or investigation into offences committed by public servants in discharge of official functions or duties – The provision aims to protect honest public servants from frivolous complaints and policy paralysis – The Court noted that Section 17A, unlike its predecessors (Single Directive 4.7(3) and Section 6A of DSPE Act), applies across the board to all public servants and includes time limits for approval decisions – It was contended that Section 17A is a salutary provision with checks and balances to prevent harassment of honest public servants – The Court held that the object behind Section 17A to provide previous approval for inquiry/investigation into offences relatable to recommendations or decisions taken by public servants in discharge of official duties cannot be faulted – The Court emphasized the need to balance protecting public servants from mala fide prosecution and upholding probity in public life – The Court also referred to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which advocates for an appropriate balance between immunities for public officials and effective investigation – The Court concluded that Section 17A is constitutionally valid, subject to the condition that the grant or refusal of approval by the competent authority will depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal/Lokayukta – This interpretation ensures an independent screening mechanism, aligning Section 17A with the principles laid down in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy – This mechanism addresses concerns about potential abuse and lack of objectivity if the government itself were the sole screening authority – The Court rejected the argument that judicial review alone is sufficient to check misuse of power, as judicial review primarily focuses on the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself – The Court also rejected the analogy with the judiciary's screening mechanism as not tenable due to the distinct nature of judicial functioning – The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to ensure the involvement of Lokpal/Lokayukta in the approval process [Paras 45, 53, 58, 59, 81, 87, 88, 89, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, 122, 124].

Constitutional Law – Interpretation of Statutes – Reading Down – Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Applied – The Court applied the principle of "reading down" to Section 17A to save it from being rendered unconstitutional – The Court noted that where there are two possible interpretations, one invalidating the law and the other upholding it, the latter should be adopted – This approach aims to salvage legislation to achieve its objective without infringing the Constitution – The Court held that Section 17A can be aligned with the pronouncements in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy by ensuring a screening mechanism by an independent agency before the grant or refusal of approval by the government, and that the recommendations of this independent agency are binding on the government – This ensures the salutary provision in preventing frivolous complaints against honest public servants is not set at naught – The Court emphasized that this interpretation does not amount to "substitution" or "judicial legislation" but rather ensures safeguards for its implementation and attracts talent to public service [Paras 97, 98, 99, 100, 111, 114, 122, 123, 124].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Investigation – Prior Approval – Role of Lokpal/Lokayukta – The Court directed that the Union of India or State Governments and the authorities competent to remove public servants, upon receiving information under Section 17A, shall immediately forward it to the Lokpal/Lokayukta (in case of States) – The Lokpal/Lokayukta shall then conduct an inquiry on the information in accordance with their respective statutes and forward a recommendation to the appropriate authority – This authority shall be bound by and act in accordance with the Lokpal/Lokayukta's recommendation regarding the grant or refusal of permission under Section 17A – For bodies/organizations/public servants not covered under the Lokpal's jurisdiction, the competent authority to remove the public servant shall commission an appropriate independent investigative agency to screen the information and act on its recommendation – The time-limit stipulated in the proviso to Section 17A (three months, extendable by one month) shall apply, and all authorities must adhere to it – The Lokpal/Lokayukta must provide reasons for their recommendations [Paras 124(i), 124(ii), 124(iii), 124(iv), 124(v)].

Dissenting Opinion – Constitutional Validity of Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Unconstitutional – Justice B.V. Nagarathna, in a separate opinion, held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is unconstitutional and ought to be struck down – The dissenting opinion argued that Section 17A is contrary to the objects of the Act and is an attempt to reintroduce provisions (Single Directive 4.7(3) and Section 6A of DSPE Act) previously struck down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy – It was contended that the requirement of prior approval forestalls inquiry and protects the corrupt, rather than the honest – The dissenting opinion found the substitution of "Government" with "Lokpal" or "Lokayukta" impermissible by way of interpretation, as it amounts to judicial legislation – It highlighted that the provision is arbitrary due to "policy bias," potential conflict of interest within government departments, and the difficulty in identifying a single public servant responsible for decisions – The dissenting opinion emphasized that the classification of public servants based on their decision-making duties, effectively protecting higher-level officers, violates Article 14 of the Constitution – It concluded that Section 17A, in substance, is a resurrection of Section 6A and continues to suffer from the infirmities identified in Subramanian Swamy, including impeding independent investigation and forewarning potential culprits – The dissenting opinion stressed that the overarching object of the Act is to prevent corruption, and Section 17A undermines this purpose by creating a shield for dishonest public servants [Paras (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), 19.1, 20.1, 20.3, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, 20.14, 20.15, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 22(i), 22(ii), 22(iii), 22(iv), 22(v), 22(vi)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The writ petition is disposed of with directions to ensure the involvement of Lokpal/Lokayukta in the approval process under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues afresh due to divergent opinions.

Service Law - Public Employment – Persons with Disabilities – Denial of Appointment – Appellant applied under Visually Handicapped category pursuant to 2019 recruitment by Coal India Limited – Declared medically unfit on ground of multiple disabilities – Single Judge quashed medical unfitness and granted relief for subsequent recruitment – Division Bench reversed on ground of expiry of panel – Supreme Court set aside Division Bench order – Held: Expiry of panel cannot defeat substantive rights where initial denial was illegal and not attributable to candidate [Paras 1–3, 8].

Disability Law – Benchmark Disability – Medical Assessment by Expert Body – AIIMS Medical Board constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions – Board assessed appellant at 57% disability, exceeding benchmark of 40% – Appellant held eligible for appointment under reserved quota for persons with disabilities [Paras 4–7, 9, 12].

Reasonable Accommodation – Concept and Scope – Reasonable accommodation recognised as a fundamental right and gateway right – Rooted in RPwD Act and Articles 14, 21 and 41 of the Constitution – Not limited to assistive devices but includes flexible, purposive interpretation of rules and conditions of employment – Denial amounts to discrimination and violates substantive equality [Paras 13–17].

Employment Rights – Right to Work – Constitutional Perspective – Right to livelihood integral to right to life with dignity – Directive Principles under Articles 39(a) and 41 to inform interpretation of fundamental rights – Public sector undertakings obligated to respect and promote disability rights [Paras 18–22].

Intersectionality – Disability and Gender – Appellant a single woman facing compounded discrimination – Technical objections such as expiry of panel cannot override need to do complete justice – Substantive equality requires recognition of multiple and intersecting axes of disadvantage [Paras 23–24].

Corporate Social Responsibility – Disability Inclusion – Public sector employer’s obligation to respect human rights of persons with disabilities – Disability inclusion integral to ESG framework and CSR obligations – Equality at workplace requires proactive accommodation and inclusion [Paras 25–28].

Relief – Creation of Supernumerary Post – Supreme Court directed creation of supernumerary post for appellant – Direction to provide suitable desk job with universal design accommodations – Posting directed at North Eastern Coalfields, Assam – Relief granted in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 30–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be appointed by creation of supernumerary post with reasonable accommodation – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Quashing - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – Essential ingredients – Quashing of proceedings – FIR alleged caste-related abuses by accused persons – No specific role or utterance attributed to the appellant – Mere presence at the spot insufficient – Held: In absence of intentional insult or abuse by caste name with intent to humiliate, offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) not made out [Paras 9, 18–19].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(r) – Intent to humiliate – Requirement of mens rea – Mere knowledge of complainant’s caste or general altercation not sufficient – Insult or intimidation must be on account of victim belonging to SC/ST – FIR and chargesheet silent as to any such intention on part of appellant – Prosecution unsustainable [Paras 12–14].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(s) – Abuse by caste name – Scope – Mere abuse or mere reference to caste not enough – Allegations must disclose caste-based abuse intended to humiliate in public view – No such allegations against appellant – Charge not attracted [Paras 15–17, 19].

Criminal Law – Cognizance and Summoning – Vicarious liability – Presence at scene – Mere presence of accused with co-accused without specific overt act does not justify framing of charge – Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on vague and omnibus allegations [Paras 8, 20].

Inherent Powers / Appellate Interference – Abuse of process – Continuation of prosecution without prima facie material against appellant would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Putting appellant to trial would be travesty of justice [Paras 21–22].

Precedent – Interpretation of SC/ST Act – Reliance placed on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 – Reiterated strict construction of penal provisions under SC/ST Act and necessity of clear allegations satisfying statutory ingredients [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.112 of 2023 set aside – Cognizance and summoning order dated 09.10.2020 quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned – Criminal proceedings against the appellant terminated – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Consumer Law – Execution Proceedings – Liability of Directors and Promoters – Consumer complaints admitted only against company – Directors/promoters not proceeded against at adjudicatory stage – No notice issued, no pleadings, no findings recorded against them – Held: Execution must strictly conform to the decree – Persons against whom no adjudication of liability exists cannot be proceeded against in execution merely because they are directors/promoters of judgment-debtor company [Paras 9–13, 17, 23].

Execution of Decree – Scope and Limitations – Executing forum cannot go behind or enlarge decree – Liability cannot be shifted or expanded at execution stage – Decree binding exclusively on company cannot be enforced against non-judgment debtors – Settled principle reiterated – Executing court may construe decree but cannot travel beyond it [Paras 12–13].

Consumer Protection Act – Adjudicatory Safeguards – Necessity of pleadings, notice and findings – Personal liability cannot be fastened without foundational adjudication – Execution proceedings cannot operate as substitute for trial or adjudication – Absence of pleadings and findings fatal to execution against individuals [Paras 11, 17].

Insolvency Law – Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Effect on execution proceedings – Moratorium shields only corporate debtor – Does not automatically extend to directors/promoters – However, execution against directors permissible only if independent liability is established – Moratorium cannot be indirectly bypassed by proceeding against non-liable directors [Paras 7, 15, 20–22].

Company Law – Separate Legal Entity – Company distinct from shareholders and directors – Liability of directors limited unless personal guarantees, undertakings or statutory exceptions shown – Doctrine of corporate personality reaffirmed – No material to show guarantees or statutory basis for fastening personal liability [Paras 13–16].

Corporate Veil – Piercing of – Exceptional doctrine – Requires specific pleadings and findings of fraud or misuse of corporate form – Invocation impermissible at execution stage without prior adjudication – Directors/promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability in absence of established grounds [Paras 18–19].

Effect of Prior Supreme Court Order – Scope clarified – Earlier order permitting continuation of execution against directors removed only moratorium-related bar – Did not adjudicate or declare personal liability – National Commission rightly examined executability on merits and declined execution against directors – No inconsistency with prior order [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of NCDRC declining execution against directors/promoters upheld – Decree executable only against corporate debtor – Liberty reserved to appellants to pursue other remedies available in law against directors/promoters in appropriate proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 24–27].

Service Law – Government Employment – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Cancellation of Appointment – Respondent selected as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari – Required to disclose pendency of criminal cases in attestation and verification forms – Respondent answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him – Held: Proper and complete disclosure of criminal antecedents is a fundamental requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust – Repeated non-disclosure amounts to deliberate concealment and is a serious lapse justifying cancellation of appointment [Paras 3–6, 8–9].

Service Law – Attestation / Verification Forms – Effect of Disclaimer – Forms contained clear stipulation that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts would render candidate unfit and ineligible for government service – Respondent submitted incorrect information twice in clear violation of disclaimer – Held: What is decisive is the status of criminal cases at the time of filling the forms – Subsequent acquittal or later disclosure does not efface the misconduct of suppression [Paras 7–9].

Service Law – Criminal Cases – Pending Investigation – Relevance at Time of Disclosure – At the time of filling forms, investigations in criminal cases were pending – Acquittal or dropping of proceedings occurred later – Held: Subsequent developments cannot accrue to benefit of candidate who furnished false information at the relevant time [Paras 8–9].

Service Law – Equity and Sympathy – Limits – High Court interfered on grounds of triviality of offences, absence of charge-sheet, subsequent disclosure and opinion of District Magistrate – Supreme Court held that sympathy cannot supplant law – Maxim “juda lex sed lex” applied – Loss of employment cannot justify overlooking deliberate concealment of material facts [Paras 9–10].

Precedents – Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. – Applicability – Principles relating to consideration of surrounding circumstances in cases of non-disclosure reiterated – Held: Facts of present case show demonstrated mal-intent due to repeated false declarations – Hence benefit of said precedents not available to respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Allahabad High Court set aside – Cancellation of respondent’s appointment upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Service Law – Misconduct – Impersonation and Use of Bogus Educational Certificate – Departmental Punishment – Workman initially engaged as contract labour and later absorbed as Helper – Disciplinary proceedings revealed impersonation of brother and use of forged educational certificate to secure employment – After domestic enquiry, workman dismissed from service – Labour Court modified punishment of dismissal to reduction of pay and increment cut for three years – Single Judge upheld award – Division Bench further modified punishment to compulsory retirement [Paras 4–6].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Effect of Release on Probation – Stigma of Conviction – Division Bench relied on fact that workman was granted benefit of probation in criminal case and held that conviction would not operate as a disqualification – Held: Release on probation does not obliterate stigma of conviction – Conviction remains intact; only sentence is substituted – Departmental action for misconduct leading to conviction is permissible notwithstanding grant of probation [Paras 7–10].

Section 12, Probation of Offenders Act – Scope and Interpretation – Section 12 removes statutory disqualifications attached to conviction under other laws – It does not exonerate misconduct nor bar departmental proceedings – Does not entitle a dismissed employee to reinstatement merely because benefit of probation was granted – Law reiterated from Union of India v. Bakshi Ram [Paras 10–11].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Error by High Court – High Court’s observation that conviction cannot be a ground to remove workman from service due to grant of probation held contrary to settled law – Supreme Court set aside said observation and reiterated correct legal position laid down in Bakshi Ram [Paras 11–12].

Equitable Consideration – Death of Workman – No Interference with Relief Granted – Though legal position clarified and erroneous observation of High Court set aside – Supreme Court declined to interfere with modified punishment of compulsory retirement considering that the workman had died and benefits had accrued to his legal heirs – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – Observation of High Court holding that conviction does not disqualify the workman set aside – Law laid down in Union of India v. Bakshi Ram reiterated – Modification of punishment as ordered by High Court not disturbed due to death of workman – Pending applications disposed of.