EMILYA DSILVA Vs. B NAVEEN MANDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the widowed daughter and grandchildren of a deceased workman. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Dakshina Kannada Sub-Division, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for brevity), after considering the claim petition, which was contested by the respondents, held that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased workman and the first respondent, but however, dislodged the claim of the appellants, since they do not fall under the definition of 'dependents', under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) THE substantial questions of law that are framed in the above appeal for consideration of this Court are as follows.-1 Whether the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Dakshma Kannada Sub-Division, mangalore, is justified in disallowing the claim made by the appellants in full by not including widowed daughter who was being maintained by a workman during his lifetime within the expression "unmarried daughter" defined under Section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 2whether the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Dakshma Kannada Sub-Division, mangalore, is justified in applying principle of restrictive interpretation to the term "dependents" as enumerated under section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, even when it is clear there is matenal dependency 3 Whether the restrictive interpretation of word "dependents" as applied by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Dakshma Kannada Sub-Division, mangalore, defeats the benevolent purpose of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, which is intended to compensate the dependents of the workman, who were materially maintained by the workman, may not be suddenly deprived of source of their maintenance and so far as possible they may be provided with means as were available to them before the accident took place

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants submits that even if it is on the basis that the definition of'dependent' under Section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), is exhaustive, that a widowed daughter who was being maintained by the workman and who was, along with her minor children dependent upon him, could not be denied from calling herself an 'unmarried daughter" as defined under Section 2 (l) (d) of the Act It is his contention that though the popular meaning to be assigned to the words 'unmarried daughter , is one who is not married, the fact that the widowed daughter is one who was once maimed can certainly be considered as an unmarried daughter, since in law she is eligible for marriage and therefore, unmarried at the time of the death of the workman