IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985
Date of Decision : November 19, 2008
Pritam Kaur and another
....Appellants
Versus
The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for respondent No. 6.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Challenge in the appeal is to the order dated September 27,
1985 passed by Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act,
Amritsar, whereby application filed by the appellants for a direction to the
respondents to pay compensation to the appellants was dismissed.
Gurmej Singh was employed with the Punjab State Electricity Board.
However, on 2.7.1981 he died as a result of an accident which arose out of
and in the course of his employment. The appellants, who are his parents
sought the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act
F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -2-
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as they had been dependant upon him.
Respondents No. 1 to 5 opposed the claim petition by pleading
that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands as they
concealed the fact that Gurmej Singh had left behind Sukchain Kaur as his
widow. Moreover, the death of Gurmej Singh was caused due to his own
negligence. Respondent No. 6 also claimed that she, being widow of Gurmej
Singh, was the only one who was dependant upon him and, thereafter,
entitled to receive the amount.
Learned Commissioner framed the following issues on the
basis of the pleadings of the parties :-
1. Whether Gurmej Singh died on 2.7.1981 due to
electric shock ? OPA.
2. Whether the applicants were dependant of the
deceased ? OPA.
3. Whether Shmt. Sukchain Kaur widow of Gurmej
Singh has remarried and is not entitled to any
compensation ? OPA.
4. Whether the applicants have got no locus standi to
file the present petition ?
5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the present petition? OPR.
6. Relief
F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -3-After going through the material on the record and hearing
learned counsel for the parties, learned Commissioner held that respondent
No. 6 being widow of Gurmej Singh and who had not re-married after the
death of Gurmej Singh was entitled to receive the amount of compensation
and, that too, in preference to the appellants who were parents of the
deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the parents of the deceased
employee under Section 30 of the Act.
The only issue which arises for determination in the present
appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to receive the amount of
compensation, being parents of deceased Gurmej Singh, or respondent No. 6,
who stood married to the deceased employee at the time of the accident.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines the term “dependant” as fol-
lows :-(d) “dependent” means any of the following relatives of a de-
ceased workman, namely :-
(i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmar-
ried 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 at-
tained 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, F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -4-(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegiti-
mate daughter or a daughter legitimate or ille-
gitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if
widowed and a minor,(d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a wid-
owed 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 work-
man is alive;
Explanation : For the purposes 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 respectively.
The appellants are the parents of the deceased. Pritam Kaur,
mother of the deceased was not a widowed mother so that she could be
termed as a dependant of deceased workman. The parents could be
considered dependants of deceased workman only if they were wholly or in
part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death.
There is no material on the file that the appellants were dependents on the
earnings of deceased workman. It was not disputed that the appellants had
four other children, who were also earning hands. Therefore, the appellants
were not shown to be wholly or in part dependant upon their deceased son.
On the other hand, it had been admitted by Pritam Kaur-appellant that her
deceased son Gurmej Singh left behind his widow Sukchain Kaur,
F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -5-
respondent No. 6. Mere fact that Sukchain Kaur, respondent No. 6 could get
remarried is no ground to disentitle her from the compensation or to hold
that she was not a dependant of deceased workman. Learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 6 states that the said respondent has not
remarried. This stand of respondent No. 6 could not be refuted by learned
counsel representing the appellants. If that be the position even today, i.e.
more than 23 years after the passing of the impugned order by learned
Commissioner, it was respondent No. 6, who was exclusively entitled to
receive the amount of compensation and not the appellants.
The findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner, while
denying the payment of compensation amount to the appellants were based
on proper appreciation of the material available on the file. These findings
of facts cannot be disturbed in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, which
is maintainable only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.
( T.P.S. MANN )
November 19, 2008 JUDGE
satish