Section 2(d) of the Employees' (Workmen's) Compensation Act, 1923 (for short referred to as the Act)defines "dependents". The provision reads as under: {Para 11}
2(d). 'Dependant' means any of the following relatives of a deceased employees namely; (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and
12. A plain reading of the above definition makes it clear that as on the date of death; wife of the deceased who becomes a widow is treated as a dependant and is made eligible to receive compensation. The Act does not make a distinction between a person who remains widow or who re-marries again.
14. Similar question has fallen for consideration before the High Court of Rajasthan in case of R.B. Moondra and Company Vs. Bhanwari and Others Contention that widow is debarred from claiming the compensation on account of re-marriage is rejected. Para 19 reads as under:
The last contention that the widow became debarred from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage has also no force because in the Act there is no such provision that after remarriage widow of the deceased would not be regarded as a dependent. Under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widow remains a dependant, within the meaning of that section so long as she is not remarried. But the definition of the 'dependant' under the Act is not so restricted and the fact that she has remarried will not disentitle her to claim compensation under the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3122 of 2002
Decided On: 24.04.2013
Mandadi Adilakshmi Vs. Vallabhaneni Siva Prasad and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Citation: 2014 ACJ 950 (AP), MANU/AP/0562/2013.
1. This appeal is filed by the wife of the deceased workman/employee questioning the order of the Commissioner for Employees' (Workmen's) Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur, (for short the Commissioner) denying her share of compensation. Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. Vasireddy Prabhunath and learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2. The deceased Mandadi Venkatrayudu, was employed as cleaner on the goods vehicle bearing No. AP 7V 4278 belonging to Opposite Party No. 1 which was insured with Opposite Party No. 2. On 26.6.1999 at about 2.00 PM while deceased was giving directions to the driver of the goods vehicle near Malapalli Fruit market, Nizamabad, he came in contact with live electric wire and died instantaneously due to electric shock. Crime No. 134 of 1999 was registered in Nizamabad I Town Police Station evidencing the incident. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. As no compensation was paid to the dependents by the employee, wife, father and mother, filed claim petition before the Commissioner, which was numbered as W.C. No. 8 of 2000. The Commissioner allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,71,354/-. The award was passed on 25.8.2001.
2. As directed by the Commissioner, the amount was deposited in the office of the Commissioner. The Commissioner passed order on 15.7.2002 holding four persons i.e., mother, father, sister and brother of the deceased as entitled to receive the compensation of 1,71,354/- in the proportion of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 51,354/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively. The appellant- wife of the deceased was denied the proportionate compensation. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
3. This Court, by order dated 6.11.2002 in CMP No. 21164 of 2002 directed the Court below/Commissioner to withhold an amount of Rs. 45,000/-from disbursement, and permitted to disburse the balance amount amongst the dependants of the deceased, identified by the Commissioner.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant filed additional documents which are part of the record before the Commissioner.
5. Relying on the said documents the learned counsel submitted that the Labour Officer concerned conducted an enquiry to verify the legal heirs of the deceased. He has recorded the statements of wife, mother and father. Father of the deceased deposed before the Labour Officer that the compensation cannot be paid to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was married. The learned counsel further submits that no evidence is shown to support the statement that the appellant was married when the compensation was due for distribution, whereas mother of the deceased deposed praying to distribute compensation to her husband, to their two children, to daughter-in-law and to herself. The Labour Officer submitted his report holding, wife, father, mother, sister and brother as dependents of deceased. It is further contended that contrary to the report of the labour Officer, Commissioner passed orders on 15.7.2002, impugned herein distributing the compensation to father (Rs. 40,000/-), mother (Rs. 51,354/-), sister (Rs. 40,000/-) and brother (Rs. 40,000/-) treating them only as dependants denying the status and share of the compensation to wife of the deceased. No reasons are assigned by the Commissioner to deny the status and compensation to wife, appellant herein. More particularly, when reliance is placed on the report of Labour Officer, who in fact described appellant also as dependant.
6. The learned counsel submitted that in the claim petition filed before the Commissioner for workmen compensation, wife, father and mother are petitioners claiming themselves as dependents and sought for compensation to them on account of untimely death of late Venkaterayudu.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that appellant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she was illegally denied her share of the compensation. It is contended that Commissioner erroneously excluded her from the list of dependants. It is further contended that the status of a person as a dependent has to be seen as on the date of death in view of the statutory mandate and the law on the issue.
8. The learned counsel representing respondents 3 to 6 supported the order of the Commissioner.
9. The question that arises for consideration is whether appellant is dependant of late Venkatrayudu and is entitled to proportionate share of compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two decisions, (1) Ravuri Kotayya Vs. Dasari Nagavaradhanamma MANU/AP/0082/1962 : AIR 1962 AP 42 (V 49 C 12) and (2) R.B. Moondra and Company Vs. Bhanwari and Others MANU/RH/0027/1970 : AIR 1970 Raj 111 (V.57 C 27).
11. Section 2(d) of the Employees' (Workmen's) Compensation Act, 1923 (for short referred to as the Act)defines "dependents". The provision reads as under:
2(d). 'Dependant' means any of the following relatives of a deceased employees namely; (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and
12. A plain reading of the above definition makes it clear that as on the date of death; wife of the deceased who becomes a widow is treated as a dependant and is made eligible to receive compensation. The Act does not make a distinction between a person who remains widow or who re-marries again.
13. This Court in Ravuri Kotayya Vs. Dasari Nagavaradhanamma, considered the similar issue. It was contended that the first respondent therein having re-married, she ceased to be a dependent after re-marriage and consequently not entitled to compensation. The said contention was rejected by relying upon the provisions of the Act.
This Court held:
....
There is no provision in the Act to the effect that subsequent events would affect the claim of the dependant to compensation. Further, a similar conclusion follows by a consideration of Section 8 sub-section (5), which is in the following terms;
8(5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant.
14. Similar question has fallen for consideration before the High Court of Rajasthan in case of R.B. Moondra and Company Vs. Bhanwari and Others Contention that widow is debarred from claiming the compensation on account of re-marriage is rejected. Para 19 reads as under:
The last contention that the widow became debarred from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage has also no force because in the Act there is no such provision that after remarriage widow of the deceased would not be regarded as a dependent. Under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widow remains a dependant, within the meaning of that section so long as she is not remarried. But the definition of the 'dependant' under the Act is not so restricted and the fact that she has remarried will not disentitle her to claim compensation under the Act.
15. As seen from the record, no evidence is brought on record to show that the appellant got re-married to another person. It was only a vague assertion made while deposing before the Labour Officer for the purpose of distribution of compensation. On the contrary, mother-in-law deposed to distribute compensation to her daughter-in-law also. Wife, father and mother filed common application before the commissioner seeking compensation describing themselves as dependents. Even in cases, where the deceased marries after the demise of the employee, this Court and Rajasthan High Court held that it has no relevance and wife of the deceased is entitled to pay compensation as per her share.
16. Following the decisions and in view of the clear and categorical mandate of the Act, I am of the opinion that status of a person as dependant of a workman (employee) has to be determined as on the date of his death and the appellant being wife of the deceased workman (employee), she is a dependant of deceased workman (employee) and is entitled to her share of the compensation.
17. The Commissioner erred in denying the compensation to the appellant, more particularly, when Labour Officer in his report has shown wife of the deceased also as a dependant.
18. This Court by order dated 6.11.2002 directed to withhold an amount of Rs. 45,000/- pending consideration of this appeal. The rest of the amount was permitted to be distributed. Thus, I am not inclined to set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 15.7.2002 in toto and to remit the matter to the Commissioner to redo the exercise of apportioning the compensation at this distance of time. Learned counsel for appellant also fairly stated that appellant would be content to receive the amount as per her share. Thus, the order under appeal passed by the Commissioner in WC No. 8 of 2000 dated 15.7.2002 not treating the appellant as a dependant of deceased workman and not apportioning the share of the compensation awarded by him is hereby set aside to the extent of denying the appellant the status as wife of the deceased and her share of compensation. One fifth of the share of the compensation awarded by the commissioner comes to Rs. 34,270/- (Rupees thirty four thousand two hundred and seventy only). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the Commissioner is directed to release the amount of Rs. 34,270/- (Rupees thirty four thousand two hundred and seventy only) from out of Rs. 45,000/- withheld by him in terms of the orders of this Court dated 6.11.2002 to the appellant-wife within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, along with the accrued interest, if any. The balance amount may be apportioned to four other dependants proportionately. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petition, if any stands disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment