A AND A ACCESSORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER WORKMENS COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None is appearing for the respondent. By this appeal learned Counsel for the appellant assails the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act awarding compensation to the respondent Hasina Begum to the tune of 4,50,000/- on account of death of one Kumari Anjum in an accident on account of breaking of fire in the factory belonging to the appellant which took place on 06.03.2002, on the basis of filing of a claim petition the second respondent despite having obtained compensation of 1,50,000/- from the petitioner which it is stated was given by the appellant on humanitarian grounds.

(2.) The claim of the respondent was contested by the appellant by filing written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the claim petition primarily on the ground that (i) the respondent Hasina Begum was not entitled to compensation under the Act, as she had failed to prove that being not a widowed mother, but a married parent, she was wholly or in part dependent on her daughter at the time of her death and as such, she was not a dependent, as defined under Section 2(d)(iii)(b) of the Act. (ii) the said respondent also failed to prove that her deceased daughter Ms. Anjum had ever been employed by the appellant. It is also pleaded that her death took place in relation to an accident which occurred in the course of her employment with the appellant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in her evidence produced before the Workmens Commissioner second respondent despite specific objection raised by the appellant in their written statement questioning her rights to claim compensation being not a dependent party or wholly on the deceased Anjum Banu has not been taken into consideration while framing issues. The Commissioner has also not dealt with this objection while disposing of the claim petition of the respondent. It is also submitted that even with respect to the employment of deceased Anjum Banu with the petitioner, despite an admission on the part of the second respondent that deceased Anjum was not an employee of the appellant and that the accident had also not occurred during the course of her employment with the appellant, the Commissioner has ignored these aspects.