MAYFIELD ESTATE NALLAKOTTAH NILGIRIS Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question arises for consideration in this case, whether any person other than a dependent can file a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act for requiring adjudication as to the claim in relation to the deceased workman. Admittedly in this case, the respondent's wife died in the course of employment. Compensation came to be fixed at Rs. 19,200/ -. It is this order which is appealed against. In so far as S. 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines 'dependent' who alone can invoke the jurisdiction and the same has not been gone into by the Court below, the order cannot be supported. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Domjee v. Maung Mia sein (186 I. C. 93) and also B. M. Habeebulla Maricar v. Periaswami [1977-II L. L. J. 324]. The further contention is that this is not a case of suo motu enquiry in which event S. 10a of the Act will apply. Therefore, where the party wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, it can be only by a dependent. The learned counsel for the respondent, after taking me through the various provision of the Act to which I will make reference shortly, contends that it is one thing to say that the jurisdiction cannot be invoked and it is another thing to say that the amount so determined and deposited cannot be disbursed. It is only at the stage of disbursement of the amount, it has to be decided as to dependency. In any event, it is submitted that where the procedure under part V has not been followed and there was no specific issue as to dependency, this Court may direct that point to be decided.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary for me to refer to some of the provisions of the Act which have appeared on the issue raised in this appeal. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is one to provide for the payment by certain classes of employer to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. It cannot be gainsaid that this is a statutory liability. Every employer is subject to the provisions of the Act when he falls within the four corners of the Act when S. 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines 'dependent' under Clause (iii) so far as the widower like the respondent is concerned, saying 'if wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death' (a) a widower. Therefore, by a reading of this definition, it is clear that there must be a material dependency as far as the widower is concerned.

(3.) S. 3 of the Act talks of the employer's liability for compensation. S. 4 of the Act lays down the format for quantum of compensation. One thing must be noted in this case, so far as this Act is concerned that even private payment of compensation will not discharge the statutory liability. This is because an unscrupulous employer may compensate his liability by paying a paltry sum taking advantage of the ignorance of the workman. Therefore, the Act talks of every safeguard to see that justice is done to the workman by way of compensation for any injury or death that had occurred in the course of employment. S. 10 (1) of the Act is important. That reads as follows :