Bombay High Court
Naresh And Ors. vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 24 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 1 (2005) ACC 369
Author: B Dharmadhikari
Bench: B Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the challenge is to order dated 5.10.2004, passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation and First Labour Court, Nagpur in W.C.A. No. 42/99. It appears that the application under Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act was filed by parents and brothers of deceased employee who expired in an accident on 13th August, 1998. During pendency of this claim proceedings the applicant No. 1-father expired on 19.10.2001 and applicant No. 2 expired on 16.1.2000. Thus, the only applicants left on record were the elder brothers of deceased.
2. In this background the pursis came to be filed by these brothers before the Commissioner to treat them as legal heirs of parents. Thereafter an application has also been filed on 24.9.2004 for treating them as legal heirs of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The application was opposed by the respondent-employer on the ground that the elder brothers are not the dependents of deceased. The learned Trial Court has accepted this defence and on 5.10.2004 has rejected the application to treat the petitioners as legal heirs of parents.
3. It is to be noted that the proceedings under Section 2 are still pending and question was only of persons who are to be treated as legal heirs of deceased parent to substitute them in those proceedings. The question of dependents of deceased did not arise at all because on the date of accident i.e., 13.8.1998 the parents were very much alive. The question whether these parents or along with them the elder brothers were dependents of deceased on the date of accident will have to be adjudicated upon by the learned Labour Court. After death of father and mother the question was of representing their interest in the proceedings and for that purpose the pursis were filed to point out that the petitioners i.e., sons are already on record and they should be treated as legal heirs of the deceased father and deceased mother respectively. The learned Labour Court, therefore, could not have confused this issue with the issue of determining whether these applicant Nos. 3,4 and 5 are dependents of deceased. This question does not arise at this stage because on 13.8.1998 the parents were very much alive.
4. Advocate Akolkar, appearing for respondent-employer placed reliance upon the judgment of Orissa High Court to contend that elder brother of deceased-workman who is major is not dependent, as contemplated by Section 2(1)(d) of Workmen's Compensation Act. However, as already held, this question does not arise at all. The question is who were the dependents entitled to receive compensation on the date of accident and if those dependents are not alive who are the legal heirs, who will be entitled to receive the amount which was then due to them. Under the circumstances the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application moved by petitioners on 24.9.2004 i.e., Annexure 'D' with this petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
