JUDGMENT
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri , J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation is the appellant. It challenges the validity of the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, dt. October 3, 1986 in E.I.Case No. 27 of 1986.
2. One Shaik Mahboob was an employee in the Boiler House of Sirsilk Limited. While in service, he died on 26-1-1979. His widowed Mother, Amina Bee, filed a case before the Insurance Court claiming benefit under the Act in E.I.Case No. 19 of 1981. By an order dt. 10-8-1984 the E.I.Court found that the accident which caused the death of the son of the petitioner, arose out of and in the course of employment. It also found that the petitioner was entitled to the dependent’s benefit from 27-1-1979 and allowed the petition directing the corporation to pay the dependent’s benefit to the petitioner from 27-1-1979. Complaining that instead of paying her a sum of Re.3.15 Ps. towards dependent’s benefit from 27-1-1979, the employer was paying only Rs. 0.37 paise per day from 1979, she filed the present application in E.C.Case No. 27 of 1986. The defence of the Corporation is that the widowed mother is entitled to receive dependent’s benefit as per the rates prescribed in the first schedule, which is 3/10ths of the full rate, that is, 75/2 paise equivalent to Rs. 0.35 paise per day. After recording the necessary evidence and considering the material on record, the E.I. Court held that the petitioner, the widowed mother of the deceased worker, was entitled to Rs. 3.15 Ps. per day. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed in this appeal.
3. Sri I.A.Naidu, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the widowed mother is entitled to the benefits under para 9 of the First schedule, therefore, the E.I. court has erred in granting the amount over and above the prescribed amount. Sri. Bikshapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends, that the widowed mother is entitled to the benefits as calculated under para 6 (a) of the first schedule and as she falls within Clause (i) of Sub-section 6-A of Section 2 of the Act, she has to be treated on par with the widow of the deceased worker and will be entitled to the benefit at full rate.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, is, what is the entitlement of the widowed mother under the Act.
5. For this purpose, it will be necessary to refer to the relevant portions of the Act and the Schedule.
6. Section 46 deals with the benefits under the Act The benefits to the dependents are dealt with in Clause (d) of Section 46 of the Act which is as follows:
“46. Benefits:- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the insured persons (their dependents or the persons hereinafter mentioned, as the case may be.), shall be entitled to the following benefits, namely-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) periodical payment to such dependent of an issured person who dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act, as are entitled to compensation under this (hereinafter referred to as dependents’ ‘benefit’).
(e) xxx
(f) xxx
xxxxxx
(2) xxx.”
7. From a perusal of Clause (d) of Section 46 of the Act, it is evident that the dependents of an insured person who died as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under the Act are entitled to compensation under the Act which is termed as “dependents’ benefit.” Section 52 of the Act deals with the dependent’s benefit. The Section reads as follows:-
“52. Dependent’s benefit:-(1) If an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act (whether or not he was in receipt of any periodical payment for temporary disablement in respect of the injury) dependents’ benefit shall be payable in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to his dependents specified in Sub-clause (i) and Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6A) of Section 2.
(2) In case the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependents as aforesaid, the dependents’ benefit shall be paid to the other dependents of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule.”
8. A plain reading of Section 52 of the Act makes it clear that on the death of an insured person the dependents benefit shall be payable in accordance with the provision of the First Schedule to his dependents specified in Sub-clause (i) and Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6-A) of Section 2 of the Act. In the absence of the relatives mentioned in the said Sub-section the dependents’ benefit shall be payable to the other dependents of the deceased in accordance with the provisions, of the First Schedule. This takes us to the meaning of the expression “dependent” Clause 6-A of Section 2 of the Act defines the expression” dependent” in the following words:-
“(6-A) “dependent” means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person, namely:
(i) a widow, minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and
(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 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;”
9. A perusal of the above definition shows that the relatives mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) are dependents for purposes of the Act, but the distinction in the three Sub-clauses, (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned above, is that those relatives which fall within the Sub-clause (i) will be statutorily treated as “dependents” without putting them to the necessity of showing that they were wholly or partly dependents of the deceased, but those relatives who fall under Sub-clause (ii) will have to show that they were wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of death, the relatives mentioned under Sub-clause (iii) will fall within the meaning of “dependents” on their showing that they were wholly or partly dependents on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death. From the perusal of the above definition, it is clear mat a widowed mother of the deceased worker falls under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (6-A) of Section 2 of the Act and is “dependent” within the meaning of the Act.
10. Now, we shall refer to the relevant provisions of the first Schedule. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to read paras 6 and 9 of the First Schedule and they are as follows:
“6 (a) The daily rate of disablement and dependents’ benefit shall be the rate, twenty-five percent more than the standard benefit rate rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the average daily wages in the contribution period corresponding to the benefit period in which the employment injury occurs.
(b) Where an employment injury occurs before the commencement of the first benefit period in respect of a person, the daily rate of disablement and dependent’s benefit shall be-
(i) Where a person sustains employment injury after the expiry of the first wage period in the contribution period in which the injury occurs, the rate, twenty-five per cent more than the standard benefit rate rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the wage group in which his average daily wages during that wage period fall;
(ii) Where the person sustains employment injury before the expiry of the first wage period in the contribution period in which the injury occurs, the rate, twenty-five per cent more than the standard benefit rate, rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the group in which wages actually earned or which would have been earned had he worked for a full day on the date of accident, fall.
The disablement or dependents’ benefit rate calculated as aforesaid shall be called the “full rate”.
“9. In case the deceased person does not leave a widow or legitimate or adopted child, dependents’ benefit shall be payable to the other dependents as follows:-
(a) to a parent or grand-parent, for life at an amount equivalent to three-tenths of the full rate and if there are two or more parents or grand-parents, the amount payable to the parents or grand-parents as aforesaid shall be equally divided between them;
(b) to any other –
(i) male dependent, until he attains eighteen years of age.
(ii) female dependent, until he attains eighteen years of age or until marriage, whichever is earlier or if widowed until she attains eighteen years of age,
at an amount equivalent to two-tenths of the full rate provided that if there be more than one dependent under Clause (b) the amount payable under this Clause shall be equally divided between them.”
11. From a perusal of the Schedule, it is clear that the First Schedule mentions what is termed as “standard rate of benefit”. Para 6 of the Schedule prescribes the method to work out daily rate of disablement or dependents’ benefit. The dependents’ benefit is 25% more than the standard rate rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the average daily wages in the contribution period corresponding to the benefit period in which the employment injury occurs. This paragraph further mentions that me disablement or dependents’ benefit rate calculated as aforesaid shall be called the “full rate”. This paragraph does not afford any guidance in ascertaining the amount payable to the dependents as defined under the Act. Now, we shall refer to paragraph 9 which has already been extracted above. But before we do so, it is necessary, to make a brief reference to para 8 of the First Schedule. Para 8 deals with the benefit to widow and children and prescribes the rate at which the benefit is payable to them. Para 9 deals with a situation where the deceased person does not leave a widow or legitimate or adopted child and prescribes the dependents’ benefits payable to other dependents. Sub-para (a) of para 9 says that a parent will be entitled to an amount equivalent to 3/ l0ths of the full rate and if there are two or more parents or grand-parents, the amount payable to the parents or grand-parents as aforesaid shall be equally divided between them. It will not be necessary to refer to Sub-para (b) of para 9 for our purpose.
12. Thus, it is clear that a parent which includes a widowed mother is only entitled to an amount equivalent to 3/10ths of the full rate. In this view of matter, the order of the Insurance Court awarding the amount at fall rate as per para 6 (a) of the First Schedule, cannot be sustained. The order of the E.I. Court is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.