MANAGEMENT BOYS TOWN SOCIETY TIRUMANGALAM Vs. V PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, dated 19.5.1988 in W.C. No. 19 of 1987.

(2.) THE petitioner in his petition contends as follows: Pitchaimani son of the petitioners was employed under the Opposite Party as an electrician. On 20.1.1984, as a result of the accident caused to him in the course of his employment under the Opposite Party, Pitchaimani died due to electrocution in the premises of the Opposite Party. THE petitioners are dependents ofPitchaimani. THErefore they have filed the petition for compensation of Rs.21,600. THE Opposite Party in their counter contends as follows: THE allegation that Pitchaimani was employed under the Opposite Party as a wireman and as a result of the accident and during the course of his employment on 20th January, 1984 at about 8 a.m., he died is not correct. Pitchaimani never worked under the Opposite Party as an electrician. He was not an employee of the Opposite Party. THE Opposite Parry was not aware of the accident and the particulars of death of Pitchaimani. THE deceased cannot be considered as a workman under the Opposite Party. THE petitioners are not dependents of the deceased. THEclaim application is not sustainable. It has come to the knowledge of the Opposite party that Pitchaimani came to the premises of the Opposite Party with the intention of committing theft of wires and died. THE petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the parents of the deceased cannot be considered as dependents and in spite of the Opposite Party taking his stand to that effect in the counter, no issue has been framed as to whether the petitioners are dependents of Pitchaimani so as to enable them to get compensation from the Opposite Party and on that ground, the appeal has got to be allowed. It is no doubt true that the Opposite Party has taken a stand in the counter that the parents of the deceased are not dependents of Pitchaimani. But, it is not as if the parents cannot be considered as dependents without any reservation. It has been held in the decision reported in M/s.Kunnesingh v. Navia, A.I.R. 1966 Raj. 36, that the father of a deceased workman can only be considered to be dependent on the deceased if it is shown that he was wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the deceased workman at the time of the latter's death. Similarly, in the decision reported in St. Joseph's Automobile and Mechanical Works v. Soosai, (1952)2 M.L.J. 436: A.I.R 1953 Mad. 206: 65L.W. 897, it has been held that when me earnings of the deceased workman were hardly sufficient for his maintenance and no balance left which would contribute to the family fund, the parents cannot said to be a dependent within the meaning of Sec.2, clause(l) (d). In the decision reported in B.M Habeebullah Maricar v. Periaswami, 1977 A.C.J. 517, it has been held by our High Court as follows:'A look at this definition of the term 'dependent'would show that it is not intended to benefit all the heirs of a deceased workman, but to embrace only those relations who, to some extent, depend upon him for their daily necessities, so much so that even some of his nearest and dearest ones, viz., sons who have attained majority, married daughters and an illegitimate daughter, whether married or unmarried are excluded if they were not dependent on the worker's earnings, wholly or in part. Kinship coupled with dependency, is thus made the sole criterion for a person to fall within the ambit of the definition. And if that be so, there is no reason why the benefit of the Act should got to heirs other than 'dependents'and Sec.9 coupled with the definition in clause (n) of Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.2 be given a restricted meaning in derogation of the language used by the legislature. To hold otherwise and to extent the benefit of the Act to the legal representatives of the deceased workman or of the dependents would be to burden the employer with liability not flowing from the subject which the Act sought to achieve and to pass the benefit provided by the Act to persons altogether outside the class contemplated by it.'In the case on hand the deceased was the only son of the petitioners (parents) and it is not as if the petitioners are not getting any financial help from me deceased in order to hold mat the earnings of the deceased was hardly sufficient for his own maintenance and no balance is left which would contribute to the family fund and, therefore, the parents cannot be considered as dependents. Pitchaimani was earning Rs.600 and he was unmarried. THErefore, the probability of the petitioners realising the fruits of his earnings at least in part cannot be ruled out to hold that the petitioners are not dependents. THEre is no one on whom the deceased would spend his earnings. THE benefit of his earnings having been enjoyed by the petitioners either wholly or in part, it cannot be stated that the petitioners are not dependents to disentitle them for the compensation payable by the employer on the death of one of their workmen. Considering all these aspects, I am of opinion that the appeal is without merit, and is liable to be dismissed.