CHANDRA SMT Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question involved in this writ petition is as to the justification of apportionment made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in respect of the compensation awarded to the various dependents namely, the widowed wife, mother, unmarried sister and minor brothers of the deceased,

(2.) The compensation of Rs. 58,152 was determined as payable to the dependents of the deceased employee by the first respondent. Thereafter based on the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Labour, 5th Circle, Madras, the petitioners and the second respondent were identified as the dependents of the deceased employee. While the first petitioner is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner was the minor sister at the time of the death of the deceased, while the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were the minor brothers of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Though there is no specific provision as to at what rate the compensation should be apportioned amongst the various dependents, the first respondent herein apparently considering the age of the second respondent who became a widow at a very young age, awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000 to be payable to her, while the remaining sum was distributed amongst the petitioners.

(3.) The grievance of the first petitioner is that the father of the deceased namely, the husband of the first petitioner though employed, is leading a wayward life and therefore they were mainly dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore the meagre sum apportioned in their favour by the first respondent was not justified. It is also averred in the grounds of the writ petition that in a compromise talk that took place between the first petitioner and the second respondent, an agreement was reached in the presence of local panchayatdars in which the second respondent agreed to take one-fourth of the total amount awarded as her share. It is claimed that the said compromise was reached on April 6, 1991 in the presence of witnesses. However, no material was placed before the Court in support of the said averment.