JUDGMENT
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This appeal arises, out of a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (Act 8 of 1923), as amended, by Act 8 of 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act, from the order dated 21-7-1965 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ran-chi. The widowed mother of the deceased workman, Phanindra Nath Mahto, is the appellant in this appeal. She is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court holding that she being the widowed mother of the deceased did not come within the word “dependant” as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, and, therefore, the compensation money has been apportioned between the widow, respondent No. 1, and the minor daughter, respondent No. 2, only, giving each of the two half of the compensation money of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the Management.
2. The facts are very simple and they are these: On 9-3-1965, Phanindra Nath Mahto, the deceased workman, who was working in Tisco, died by accident. The Tisco deposited Rs. 10,000 as compensation to be paid to the dependants of the deceased. There claimants, namely, the widow of the deceased, Binapani Mahatani, respondent No. 1, the minor daughter of the deceased workman by respondent No. 1, Jayanti alias Sandhya Mahatani, respondent No. 2, and the widowed mother, Saraswati Devi, the appellant, filed claim to get the compensation money The Labour Court, as stated above, decided that the widowed mother, the appellant, was not entitled to the compensation, and, therefore, he held that the widow, respondent No. 1, will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 5,000 for herself out of the compensation money and the other half of Rs 5,000 should remain in deposit so that out of this amount the marriage of the daughter may be solemnised and accordingly he further directed that a Postal Savings Bank Account should be opened in the name of the minor unmarried daughter to be released on the occasion of her marriage in favour of her legal guardian, The widowed mother has, therefore, come up in appeal being aggrieved bv the aforesaid order rejecting her claim.
3. It appears that the widow of the deceased, respondent No. 1, filed her claim on 14-5-1964 and in paragraph 4 of the said claim petition she said that the widowed mother, the appellant, was not dependant on the deceased, as she lived with Shri Sashadhar Mahto, the elder brother of the deceased and has also got a decent income from cultivation and other sources. The appellant, however, in her claim petition filed on 12-6-1964 said that according to her caste custom the widow of the deceased is eligible for remarriage, and, therefore, there is every apprehension that drawing the compensation money she will remarry and go away She further stated in paragraph 3 of her petition that with the death of her son, the deceased, she has been brought to a
point of starvation. She also said in the application that she used to be maintained out of the income of the deceased and the deceased used to live jointly with his brother Sasadhar.
4. That learned Labour Court, however, has not considered these points nor given any reason as to why the widowed mother, the appellant, was not entitled to get a portion of the compensation. The Presiding Officer on his interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, and, without giving any reason, came to the conclusion that the ‘widowed mother’ did not come within the word “dependant” as defined by the Act.
5. On this appeal, therefore, two points arise for determination: (i) whether tht ‘widowed mother’ comes within the word “dependant” as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, and, (ii), if so, what portion of the compensation money, she should get on the facts of the case.
6. In order to decide the first question, it is necessary to read Section 2(1)(d) (i) and (iii) (b) of the Act. Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (iii) (b) are to the following effect:–
“2. (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,–
XX XX xX
(d) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely :–
(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, and unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother: and
XX XX XX
(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of
his death.
XX XX XX (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, XX XX XX"
From the above, it is plain that because the word “or” is used in Section 2(1)(d)(i), the Labour Court probably got the impression that the widowed mother was excluded and not included within the definition of the word “dependant” under the Act. This impression, however, in my opinion, is wrong and is not borne out by the true meaning and correct interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(i). The word “or” has been used in Section 2(1)(d)(i), as appears to me, because the word “any” occurs in Section 2 (1)(d) which says “dependant means “any” of the following relatives of a deceased workman.” The word ‘any’ has been used there only to show that if all the four persons, mentioned in Section 2(1)(d)(i), are not alive then anyone of these four persons or more who may be alive may get the compensation. According to Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, 1962, at pages 229 to 230: To carry out the intention of the legislature, it is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunctions “or” and “and” one for the other. “Now.
If the intention of the legislature would tiave been not to include ‘widowed mother’ within Section 2(1)(d)(i) then in that case in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) it would not have been mentioned “a parent other than a widowed mother”. The widowed mother was excluded from Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) obviously because she has been included under Section 2(1)(d)(i). In my opinion, therefore, the real intention of the legislature was beyond reasonable doubt effected by reading ‘”or” as “and” so that Section 2(1)(d)(i) and Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) may go together.
7. On a true interpretation, therefore, of Section 2(1)(d)(i) the following relatives become dependants without any further qualification :–
A widow, a minor legitimate son, unmarried legitimate daughter, and widowed mother.
The question of dependency on the earning of the workman at the time of his death does not arise in this case. The only thing that the claimants have to establish under the Act is the specified relation. This is the true meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i). Section 2(1)(d)(ii) is not relevant for our purpose. According to Section 2(1)(d)(iii), the relatives of the deceased workman, who cannot claim compensation by merely proving the specified relationship, are specified under Sub-clauses (a) to (h) of Section 2(1) (d) (iii). These relatives have to prove that they were “wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death”. It is apparent from Section 2(1)(d) (iii)(b) that a widowed mother is excluded but a parent is included, and, therefore, unless a parent shows that wholly or in part he was dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, he would not be entitled to any claim of compensation, but that is not the case with widowed mother who would be entitled to claim compensation along with the other three relatives mentioned in Section 2(1)(d)(i), if all the four were alive at the time of his death, irrespective of her dependency on the earnings of the deceased workman. The purpose of the statute is not to give solatium to a relative of any person who is an employee and has been fatally injured, but something to replace the actual loss which he or she has suffered. On the above interpretation, therefore, under Section 2(1)(d)(i), the widowed mother, the appellant, was entitled to compensation. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the appellant was not entitled to compensation.
8. As regards the next question, it would be for the Labour Court to decide as to what portion of the compensation money should be given to her. The Labour Court will consider the quantum of compensation to be given to the widowed mother. The Court will have to determine whether the appellant is living with her
elder son as alleged by respondent No. 1 and maintained by him. This will, of course, touch only the question of quantum of compensation and not right to receive the compensation money. She is entitled to a portion of the compensation money but what portion should be given to her will be determined by the Labour Court.
9. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is partly set aside as far as the appellant and the widow are concerned. Now on receipt of the records from this Court the Labour Court will proceed to determine the quantum of compensation to be paid to the appellant in view of the allegations made in the claim petition by the widow and by the widowed mother. If necessary, the Labour Court will take evidence on this point.
10. The order of the Labour Court giving Rs. 5,000 to the unmarried daughter and the directions given there about it are affirmed as they are very proper and the amount of Rs. 5,000 set apart out of the compensation money for her marriage if also just on the facts of the case. The remaining Rs. 5000 would be apportioned between the widow and the widowed mother of the deceased workman.
11. Parties will bear their own costs
of this Court.