SUNDERBAI DAJIBA Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Labour Court No. 2 Jabalpur hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner dated 7th December, 1973 in case No. 34/73 -WC F .

(2.) THE short facts stripped off details leading to the present appeal and essential for its decision are these. One Gondia, an employee of the respondent died on 27th April, 1972 as a result of the injuries received in an accident while discharging his duties being in the employment of the respondent. His mother in her personal capacity and as the next friend of her minor children that is minor brothers and sisters of the deceased made an application under the Workmens compensation Act, 1923 for short hereinafter referred to as the Actclaiming a compensation for Rs. 6,000. This application has been dismissed on the ground that mother is not a dependent within the meaning of section 2 l d of the Act and as her husband father of the minors is alive, she was not competent to make an application on their behalf as next friend. The relevant part of the Commissioners impugned order is quoted here -inbelow. "smt. Sunderbai is not a widowed mother of the deceased workman. She is not a dependent as defined by section 2 l d of the Workmens compensation Act, 1923. The claim on behalf of minor children, also must be dismissed. The father of the children is alive and as such the mother has no right to claim amount as a next friend. Moreover, the father of the children has applied for allotment of compensation. He examined himself and his wife Sunderbai also as witness. Shri Dajiba and Smt. Sunderbai has stated therein that they have minor children, but they could not prove that Shri Dajiba was dependent on the income of deceased Shri Gondia. The husband and father of children i. e. Shri Dajiba himself has failed to prove that he is dependent of deceased gondia, hence this second application is after -thought and is not maintainable. "

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the word parent includes in it mother and what is excluded from it is widowed mother.