Legal Heir Of Late Shri Baldevbhai ... vs Safal Gala Realistic

Gujarat High Court

Legal Heir Of Late Shri Baldevbhai ... vs Safal Gala Realistic on 9 July, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/244/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 244 of 2020
                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                   Yes            No
                                                                                            NO
                       ==========================================================
                         LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BALDEVBHAI GOVINDBHAI, SANTOSHBHAI
                                              GOVINDBHAI GANGRI
                                                    Versus
                                         SAFAL GALA REALISTIC & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       KHYATI A CHUGH(10132) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                         Date : 09/07/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, now known as the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, in Application No.8 of 2019, whereby the application for distribution of the compensation amount came to be rejected.

2 It is the case of the present petitioner that the deceased was serving with respondent No.1 and sustained injuries on 18.08.2017, which ultimately resulted in his death. The elder brother, who is the present petitioner, filed an Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/244/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined application for distribution of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was his younger brother and was residing with him in a joint family. It was contended that the petitioner was dependent on the income of the deceased and that, prior to his death, the parents of the deceased had already passed away, and his sister had also predeceased him. It was submitted before the learned Labour Court that the compensation amount of Rs.8,79,800/-, which was deposited, was required to be released in favour of the petitioner, who claims to be the sole heir of the deceased. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "dependent" as provided under Section 2(1)

(d) of the Act, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the respondent.

4 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the petitioner and the deceased were staying in the joint family and they were depending on the income of each other as except the petitioner, no other family member survived on the date of incident. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Mishra that in absence of any other heirs the petitioner would be only dependent person and entitled for the compensation, which was deposited before the learned Court. It is submitted by the learned advocate Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/244/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Mr.Mishra that the learned Commissioner has wrongly interpreted the provision of section 2D of the Act and has declined to allow the application for distribution filed by the present petitioner therefore, impugned order deserves to be allowed.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has also relied on the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 720 of 2015, wherein, in an identical situation, the Bombay High Court allowed the claim of the brother by considering him to be a dependent of the deceased.

5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mehta, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "dependent," as he is the elder brother of the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submits that only a dependent has the right to claim compensation, and since the petitioner does not satisfy this requirement, the learned Court has rightly refused the distribution application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

6 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates and on perusal of the reasons recorded by the learned Commissioner, it emerges that the application filed by the present petitioner for distribution came to be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of dependent as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/244/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined The relevant portion of the definition is reproduced hereinbelow:

"(d) "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely:

(i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and

(ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; and

(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death--

(a) a widower,

(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,

(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor,

(d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor,

(e) a widowed daughter-in-law,

(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,

(g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or

(h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive "

On careful reading of the above provision, it is clear that an elder brother of the deceased workman is not included in the category of dependents recognized under the Act. Even if it is pleaded that the petitioner was financially dependent on the deceased, the same would not suffice unless the relationship is specifically covered under the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/244/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined statutory definition.

7 This Court has referred the decision relied upon by the learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioner of Bombay High Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Madhu @ Mahadev s/o Govindrao Newade (died) it emerges that the Court has relied on the decision in the case of Gopal Synthetics vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota and ors, reported in 1994 LAB. I.C. 1968 and has held that the brother of the deceased employee was not depended under section 2(1)(d) of the Act 8 This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ajay Balairam Kori Since Decd.Versus Navnitbhai Govindbhai Panchal in Letters Patent Appeal No.261 of 2022 wherein the application filed by the brother before the learned single judge for joining heirs came to be rejected which was set aside by the Division bench by observing as under::

"5.1 When learned single Judge adverted to the aspect whether the applicant Shyamlal Kori was not dependent and therefore was not entitled to compensation, consequentially not eligible to be joined as heirs of the deceased, he mixed up the two concepts, to bring on record the heir and to be entitled to relief.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/244/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 5.2 In a given case it may happen that though a party may became heir and legal representative as of his or her own right, he may not be reap the fruits of litigation on merits as he would not be entitled. Whether the applicant Shyamlal Kori is entitled to compensation or not is a distinct aspect. Merely because he would be on record, he will not claim the merit of the case to be in his favor automatically. The entitlement of the compensation, to be stated at repeat, is a separate consideration to be dealt with by the court of Workmens Compensation Commissioner on merits."

9 In the considered opinion of this Court, when the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "dependent" as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, he is not entitled to claim or receive the compensation amount as prayed for. The learned Commissioner has not committed any error, either in law or on facts, in passing the impugned order rejecting the application for distribution of compensation. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

10 Resultantly, the present petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:01 IST 2025