NAVNITBHAI GOVINDBHAI PANCHAL Vs. AJAY BALAIRAM KORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 7/7/2018 passed below Exhibits 10 and 12 in Workman Compensation Application No.2/2017, wherein and whereby the application filed for condonation of delay and application for joing legal heirs in the compensation proceedings have been allowed.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Hitendra D. Rajput appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Workman Compensation allowing the applications is illegal since such application is filed by the elder brother of the deceased employee after his father, who filed the original application seeking compensation, passed away. He has submitted that the respondent is the elder brother, who being a major, cannot be allowed to be brought on record in the compensation proceedings for claiming compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act , 1923 (for short "the Act") since the elder brother, who is not dependent and major, has been excluded from the definition of "dependent" as stipulated in Sec. 2(d) of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in case of B.M. Habeebullah Maricar vs. Periaswami And Ors., AIR 1997 Madras 330. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhri appearing for the respondent has submitted that since the father of the respondent, who had initiated the proceedings of compensation after the death of his son i.e. the younger brother of the respondent, passed away on 19/6/2017, the respondent filed an application in the original workman compensation proceedings for condonation of delay and for bringing him as a legal heir on record of such proceedings. He has submitted that the respondent being the only dependent and legal heir of the deceased employee/workman, the order passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation is just and proper and the same may not be set aside. He has submitted that such application is maintainable, as it is filed being a legal heir of the deceased employee and not as a dependent. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Mandadi Adilakshmi vs. Vallabhaneni Siva Prasad And Ors ., 2013 LawSuit (AP) 317, the judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation vs. P.V. Mohanan , 1988 LawSuit (Kerala) 11 and the Division Bench decision dtd. 14/10/1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Karnataka in case of Kaveri Structurals vs. Bhagyam . Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be entertained.