Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/629/1999 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 629 of 1999
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 372 of 1999
=========================================================
MH
TRIVEDI - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJUBEN
CHITHARBHAI HEIR OF DECD.CHITHAR MAGAN KARCHALIPAR & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MAYUR S BAROT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR RD RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR GM
JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 21/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
appellant, Insurance Inspector of E.S.I.Corporation, has called into
question order dated 03.03.1999 of learned single Judge of this
Court in First Appeal No.372 of 1999, whereby the appeal was
dismissed.
2. There
is no dispute about the fact that the father of respondent No.1 died
during the course of employment on account of an industrial accident
on 21.6.2981. Her application for due compensation was resisted only
on the ground that she was a married daughter of the deceased
employee. There is also no dispute about the fact that the
respondent’s husband had passed away and she was dependent upon and
residing with the deceased employee at the time of the accident.
Under such circumstances, the Employees’ Insurance Court decided on
04.12.1998 that the respondent was entitled to the dependent’s
benefits due under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (“ESI Act” for short).
2.1 Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order in E.S.I. Application No.9 of 1996,
the appellant had approached this Court by way of First Appeal and,
in the impugned order, learned single Judge has analyzed the scheme
of the relevant provision and held that the expression “unmarried
daughter” would include a daughter who is divorced or who is
widowed at the time of death of the insured person. The present
appeal was sought to be argued mainly on the basis that the
definition of “dependant”, contained in Sec.2 (6-A), was
not duly considered and interpreted by learned single Judge.
Considering that argument, it was seen that the definition of the
expression “dependant” was wide enough to include widowed
daughter of the deceased employee, in the facts of the present case.
The definition of “dependant” in Sec.2 (6-A) of the ESI
Act reads as under:
“S.2
(6-A) “dependant”
means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person,
namely :-
(i) a
widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or
adopted daughter;
(ia)
a widowed mother;
(ii)
if wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the
time of his death, a legitimate or adopted son or daughter who has
attained the age of eighteen years and is infirm;
(iii)
if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured person
at the time of his death, –
(a)
a parent other than a widowed mother,
(b)
a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a
daughter legitimate or adopted or illegitimate if married and a minor
or if widowed and a minor,
(c)
a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a
minor,
(d)
a widowed daughter-in-law,
(e)
a minor child of a pre-deceased son,
(f)
a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the
child is alive, or
(g)
a paternal grand-parent if no parent of the insured person is alive;
3. Separating
the relevant part of the definition, it would clearly appear that
“dependant”, inter alia, means and includes a
legitimate daughter, if she is unmarried, or a legitimate daughter
who is wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured
present at the time of his death, on composite reading of clauses (i)
and (iii) (b). Therefore, the argument that the respondent was not a
“dependant” could not be accepted. No other reason is
canvassed to interfere with the impugned order of learned single
Judge and in view of the relevant provision being read as above, the
appeal has to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Interim relief, if any is operating, shall stand
vacated.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
Sd/-
(
K.A.Puj, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top