[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rawta And Anr vs Makna Ram And Ors on 12 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 576/2011
1. Rawta S/o Shri Ashaji Meghwal, aged about 47 years
resedent of Village-Noon, Tehsil & District Sirohi.
2. Smt. Chunni W/o Sh. Rawta Ji Meghwal, aged about 42
years resident of Village-Noon, Tehsil & District Sirohi.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Makna Ram S/o Choga Ji Meghwal resident of Village-Noon,
Tehsil & District Sirohi.
2. Shankar S/o Ukaji Ghnchi resident of Village-Noon, Tehsil &
District Sirohi.
3. Gajaji S/o Ukaji Ghanchi resident of Village-Noon, Tehsil &
District Sirohi.
4. Sawaji S/o Gharmaji Ghanchi resident of Village-Noon,
Tehsil & District Sirohi.
5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sirohi
6. Natwar Lal Rupaji Prajapat resident of Village-Noon, Tehsil
& District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Vaishnav Nikita
Mr. Jitendra M. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Jain for
Mr. Aishwarya Anand
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 04.02.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 04.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 12.02.2026
1. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (2 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
1923') (as it then was) has been filed challenging the judgment
and award dated 21.07.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Sirohi in Claim No.
W.C./F/11/99, vide which, the claim petition filed by the
appellants, i.e., father and mother of the deceased Nanu, was
dismissed mainly on the ground that the parents do not fall within
the definition of dependents under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of
1923.
Factual Matrix
2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under Section
22 of the Act of 1923 was filed by the appellants initially against
respondent Nos. 1 & 4; however, subsequently respondent Nos. 5
& 6 were impleaded on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
the C.P.C. By way of the claim petition, it was stated that
deceased Nanu, i.e., the daughter of the appellants, was working
as a labourer under the employment of respondent Nos. 2 to 4
and was at the relevant time undertaking the work of transferring
the concrete and respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor in which
she was engaged for the purpose of undertaking her employment.
The respondent No. 1 drove the tractor rashly and negligently,
causing her to fall down, and the tractor ran over her, resulting in
her immediate death. It was stated that for the incident in
question, an FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. The claimants further stated that the
deceased was 17 years of age and was earning Rs. 1,800/- per
month. The claimants further stated that they were dependent
upon the deceased and, therefore, by way of filing claim petition,
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (3 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation with 18% interest
and 50% penalty was claimed.
3. Post impleadment of the respondent Nos.5 & 6, the amended
claim was filed while asserting that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4
were undertaking the work for the principal employer i.e.
respondent Nos.5 & 6, for the construction of the road from Fugni
to Tawri. It was asserted that the contract for construction was
given by the respondent No.5 i.e. PWD Department to the
respondent No.6 i.e. Natwar Lal, the Contractor, who had further
given the sub-contract to respondent Nos.2 to 4.
4. The respondents filed their replies. As far as respondent Nos.
2 to 4 are concerned, they filed the reply while denying the
deceased being in their employment, however, they admitted the
fact that the death of the deceased was caused during the work
being undertaken, but was due to the negligence and fault of the
deceased herself. It was, however, asserted that the deceased was
married and the appellants were not dependent upon the
deceased. It was further asserted that Gena Ram i.e. husband of
the deceased had entered into a settlement with the respondents
and, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. The
respondent No.5 filed a separate reply while asserting that the
deceased was not under the employment of the respondent-PWD
Department, but was under the employment of respondent Nos.2
to 4 only. It was further asserted that in the month of June 1999,
under the Famine Relief Project, the road was being constructed
from Fugni till Hanumanji Ka Marg, for which, the contract was
given to respondent No.6 i.e. Natwar Lal, who was responsible for
bringing the labourers and the workers and the department had
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (4 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
got no role to play. It was thus asserted that there was no
proximity of the deceased with the department and no employer-
employee relationship existed.
5. After filing of the reply, the learned Commissioner framed
five issues on 05.10.1999 and two additional issues on
27.07.2001. Thereafter, the claimant Rawtaram got himself
examined as PW-1 and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, Gena
Ram, Shankar Lal, Pepa Ram, Savia and Mancha Ram were
examined. Chandra Shekhar and Swaroop Raj were examined on
behalf of respondent No.5 and Natwar Lal on behalf of respondent
No.6. Various documents were also exhibited.
6. The learned Commissioner thereafter proceeded to pass the
judgment dated 21.07.2006 whereby without deciding the issues
framed vide orders dated 05.10.1999 & 27.07.2001 whatsoever,
the Commissioner dismissed the claim of the appellants while
observing that the deceased was married and the father and
mother of the deceased i.e. the appellants did not fall within the
definition of dependent under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923.
The learned Comissioner relied upon the decision of the Single
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramsingh &
Anr. vs. Shivaji Rao & Anr. reported in 2006 ACJ 968. Learned
Commissioner further held that since the husband of the deceased
has stated during the course of his examination that he does not
wish to take any compensation, no case for grant of any
compensation was made out and there was no requirement of
deciding of any such issues in the case in hand. Being aggrieved
by the above-mentioned judgment, the present appeal has been
filed.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (5 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
Arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants:
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Vaishnav Nikita,
while laying a challenge to the judgment impugned, submitted
that it was a bounden duty of the learned Commissioner, who had
framed the issues, to decide the same thereafter. She, while
referring to the ordersheet of the Commissioner dated
05.10.1999, submitted that issue no.3 was specifically framed by
the learned Commissioner to the extent that as to whether the
appellants were dependent upon the deceased and were entitled
for claiming the compensation or not. However, no adjudication
was done in spite of framing of seven issues by the learned
Commissioner. She asserted that when the entire evidence was
collected and various documents were exhibited, there was no
occasion available for the Commissioner to have decided the case
in a cursory manner, as has been done in the case in hand.
8. Learned counsel further, while relying upon the definition of
dependent under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923, submitted
that the learned Commissioner has proceeded to decide the
matter while being oblivious to Clause (iii) b of Section 2(1)(d) of
the Act of 1923 wherein as far as dependent is concerned, even
the parents, other than a widowed mother, have been treated as
dependent. She further submitted that a bare perusal of the
definition of dependent itself will reveal that even parental
grandparents and widowed daughter-in-law have been included
within the definition of dependent, the only embargo was to show
that they are wholly or partly dependent on the earnings of the
workman at the time of his death. She further asserted that it was
the bounden duty of the learned Commissioner concerned to give
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (6 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
his adjudication upon the issues, while considering the entire
evidence, to find out as to whether the appellants were able to
make out a case of being wholly or partly dependent upon the
earnings of the deceased, which in the present case, has not at all
been done by the learned Commissioner concerned. She further
submitted that the reliance placed upon the judgment passed by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court was per se illegal as that case
pertained to a claim under the Motor Accident Claims where the
definition of dependent is totally different and the adjudication
was done while relying upon the definition of legal representative
as provided under Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure and
not while dealing with the definition of dependent under the Act of
1923.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that in the claim itself, the
appellants had stated that they were dependent upon the income
of the deceased. Furthermore, during the course of evidence, the
father of the deceased i.e. the appellant No.1 had appeared in the
witness-box and in so many words, had clarified his dependency
upon the deceased and had asserted that the deceased was never
married. She asserted that on various occasions, questions were
asked to him and he had remained firm on his stand with regard
to the fact of deceased never being married to Gena Ram. It was
asserted that the respondents had just, with a view to make out
their defence, tried to show the deceased married to Gena Ram,
which further will be clear from the fact that Gena Ram appeared
as a witness and submitted that he does not want to claim any
compensation as he has received Rs.11,000/- as settlement from
the respondents. She asserted that this fact itself was sufficient to
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (7 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
show collusion on the part of the respondents with Gena Ram. She
further asserted that no documents were placed on record to show
the deceased being married to Gena Ram or to show her staying
with Gena Ram. On the contrary, the appellants had placed on
record the Ration Card, Identity Card issued by the Election
Commission of India, the Death Certificate, the FIR, the memo of
handing over the dead body during the criminal proceedings and
other documents, wherein everywhere the deceased was shown as
daughter of the appellant No.1 and nowhere she was shown as
wife of Gena Ram. She thus asserted that the judgment passed by
the learned Commissioner is perverse and the same has been
passed while being oblivious of consideration of the relevant
documents as well as the evidence available on record.
10. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by
the Delhi High Court in the case of "A & A Accessories vs.
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation" reported in 2010
SCC Online Del 3640 to emphasize that even parents can be
treated as dependents under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923 if
it can be shown that they were wholly or partly dependent upon
the deceased. She also relied upon the judgment passed by the
High Court of Madras at Madurai in the case of "Thilagavathi vs.
Deputy Commissioner & Ors." reported in 2016 SCC Online
Mad 32380 and a recent judgment of High Court of Bombay in the
case of "Saraswati Sudam Manwar & Anr. vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd." reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 4974,
emphasizing that in case dependency is proved, even the parents
of the deceased shall be treated as dependent under the Act of
1923.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (8 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
Arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents:
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
more particularly, respondent-Department emphasized that the
respondent has got no role as far as grant of compensation is
concerned and there was no employer-employee relationship
between the deceased and the respondent-Department. It was
further emphasized that the learned Commissioner had rightly
passed the judgment impugned while considering the definition of
dependent and while relying upon the judgment passed by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court. The counsel, however, was not in a
position to dispute the fact that inspite of taking the entire
evidence and framing of issues, the learned Commissioner has not
given issue wise adjudication and has simply decided the case
only while relying upon the judgment passed by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court (supra).
Analysis:
12. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and peruse the
material available on record.
13. The first and foremost question for consideration before this
Court is as to whether the parents would be included within the
definition of dependent under the Act of 1923. For the above-
mentioned purpose, it will be relevant to quote the definition of
'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as under:
2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,-
(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a
deceased workman, namely,-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (9 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
b
(i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, and
unmarried b[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;
(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 c[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;]
d
[Explanation.-For the purpose of sub-clause (ii) and items (f)
and (g) of sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or
child include an adopted son, daughter or child include an
adopted son, daughter or child respectively;
14. Needless to emphasise that the legislation in question is a
beneficial legislation which has been enacted with the pious object
of providing of payment of compensation to certain classes of
employees in case of injury or death by any accident. The
legislation is undoubtedly a beneficial piece of legislation and thus
in case of any ambiguity, the interpretation, which subserves the
purpose of enactment, has to be made while considering the
provisions of the Act in question. However, in the present case, a
bare perusal of the definition of dependent, more particularly
Clause (iii)(b) of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923 will leave no
iota of doubt that in case it is shown that the parent (other than a
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (10 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
widowed mother) is wholly or partly dependent on the earnings of
the workmen at the time of his/her death, then, parents are
definitely to be included within the definition of dependent.
Furthermore, a bare perusal of the judgment passed by the Delhi
High Court in the case of "A & A Accessories vs.
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (supra)" and
Madras High Court in the case of "Thilagavathi vs. Deputy
Commissioner & Ors. (supra)" as well as the High Court of
Bombay in the case of "Saraswati Sudam Manwar & Anr. vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)" leave no iota of
doubt that in case the parents can show that they were wholly or
partly dependent upon the deceased, then they are to be treated
as dependent for the purpose of grant of compensation along with
other benefits under the Act of 1923.
15. As far as, the judgment relied upon by the learned
Commissioner is concerned, the same did not deal with the
provisions of the Act in question and pertained to the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further the definition of 'legal
representative' was under consideration as provided under Section
2(11) of the C.P.C. The definition of 'legal representative' is
altogether different from the definition of dependent as provided
under the Act of 1923. The reliance placed upon the judgment
passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by the Commissioner
Workmen Compensation, is totally unjustified and the same has
been done without considering the provision applicable to the
present case.
16. Furthermore, it will be relevant to mention here that after
considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (11 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
Commissioner had framed five issues for adjudication vide order-
sheet dated 05.10.1999. The issues framed are as under:-
"Qjhdsu mi fuEu rufd;kr dk;e dh xbZ%&
1- vk;k e`rd usuq iq=h jkork es?koky vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ls 4 ds
fu;kstu esa jgus fu;kstu ds nkSjku VªsDVj la[;k vkj- ts-
24@vkj 1629 dks nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gqbZA
2- vk;k usuq dh nq?kZVuk Lo;a dh ykijokgh ls gksus ds dkj.k
vizkFkhZ ftEesnkj ugha gS\
3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k e`rd vkfJr ugha gksus ds dkj.k eqvkots ds
gdnkj ugha gS\
4- vk;k izkFkhZx.k okn esa vafdr jde ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\
5- vuqrks'k"
17. Thereafter, post filing of reply by newly added respondents,
by way of order-sheet dated 27.07.2001, two more issues were
framed which are as under:-
"6- vk;k fd e``rd fookfgr gksdj vU;a= fuokl djrh Fkh vr% izkFkhZx.k
D;k vkfJrksa esa vkrs gSa
7- vk;k fd e`rdk dk fu;kstu fdlds v/khu FkkA"
18. As stated supra, various witnesses were examined and
various documents were exhibited on behalf of both the sides in
support of the issues so framed. It is thus clear that bounden duty
of the learned Commissioner was to consider the entire evidence
available on record and, thereafter, give issue wise findings, more
particularly in case where the issues were framed and the entire
evidence was led thereafter. The learned Commissioner in the
present case has not only failed to give any issue wise finding and
has rather without dealing with any evidence, has given a finding
of deceased being married to Gena Ram and further while relying
upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
treated the appellants to be not falling within the definition of
dependents. The above-mentioned procedure adopted by the
learned Commissioner is alien to the procedure for adjudication
provided under the Act of 1923 or even in adjudication of cases
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (12 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
which are treated as summary proceedings. It was the bounden
duty of the learned Commissioner to consider the evidence of both
the sides and thereafter to deal with evidence as well as the
documents exhibited and thereafter give his findings upon the
issues so framed, more particularly, as to whether the appellants
were in a position to show that they were partly or wholly
dependent upon the income of the deceased and as to whether
the deceased was married to Gena Ram. The learned
Commissioner simply based upon the statement of Gena Ram, has
come to conclusion that the deceased was married to Gena Ram,
whereas, there are contrary evidence available on record,
inasmuch as, the documents i.e. Ration Card, Identity Card issued
by the Election Commission of India, Death Certificate, the FIR,
the documents of the investigation etc., which clearly point out
that in every document in the name of deceased, there was no
reference to her being married to Gena Ram. Rather, in all the
documents, she has been shown to be daughter of the appellant
No.1.
19. On the contrary, the document relied upon by respondent
Gena Ram, was only with regard to a correspondence issued from
the Office of Collector, Sirohi dated 12.03.2001, while showing
that since the claim filed by Gena Ram was one and half year old,
no compensation under the Chief Minister Relief Fund can be
granted. In the above-mentioned document, while deciding the
claim, the name of wife of the applicant was shown as deceased,
however, in the above-mentioned proceedings, there is no
adjudication as to whether deceased was wife of Gena Ram by the
Collector concerned also. Thus, placing sole reliance upon the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (13 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
document by itself was totally unjustified. Furthermore, simplicitor
Gena Ram stating that he was married to deceased would not
make out a case of admission on the part of the claimants as the
claimants since inception, have come out with a specific case that
deceased was just 15 years old and was never married to Gena
Ram.
20. In the present appeal, a substantial question of law is
involved, inasmuch as, without considering the evidence available
on record and without dealing with the evidence, the adjudication
has been done. Thus, the judgment in question falls within the
four corners of being a perverse judgment as also the same has
been passed while relying upon a precedent, which is not at all
applicable to the case in hand.
21. It is thus clear that the learned Commissioner was required
to analyse the entire evidence available on record including the
statements of witnesses as well as the documents exhibited for
deciding all the issues, more particularly, the issue of dependency
of the appellants upon the deceased and the deceased being
married to Gena Ram. The judgment impugned is rather totally
unreasoned and shows total non-application of mind on the part of
the learned Commissioner while deciding the issues. The same
thus cannot be sustained in law. Since the impugned judgment is
of 2006, normally this Court would had finally adjudicated the
matter here itself, however, since in the present case, though
evidence has been taken and there is no consideration of the
same, in case any adjudication is done at this stage while
considering the merits of the entire evidence, the parties
concerned would definitely lose a right to appeal.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6757] (14 of 14) [CMA-576/2011]
Conclusion:
22. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
judgment impugned dated 21.07.2006, passed by the learned
Commissioner Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Sirohi in Claim
No. W.C./F/11/99 "Rawta & Anr. v. Makna Ram & Ors." is
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back for
adjudication before the learned Commissioner Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923, Sirohi, who shall adjudicate the same
after deciding all the issues and after considering the entire
evidence, within a period of 6 months from receipt of present
judgment and the record of the case in hand. The adjudication
shall be done after issuing notices to both the sides.
23. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.
24. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
25. Record of the case be sent back immediately.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
28-Love/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 04:19:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
