IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 247 of 2010()
1. KUNJI, RAJI NIVAS, DECENT MUKKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDHU, D/O.VILASINI,
... Respondent
2. CHANDRIKA, BINDHU BHAVAN,
3. VINOD, KOOTHANGAL VEEDU,
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
M.F.A No.247 of 2010-D
*****************************
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act by the 4th respondent before the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission. Claimant is the mother of a
deceased workman. The claimant initiated proceedings arraying
the appellant as the 4th opposite party. The claim has been
allowed. Direction has been issued to deposit the amount. The
appellant has no dispute about the quantum of money ordered to
be paid. Her only grievance is that there has been no specific
direction about the amount which the appellant/4th opposite
party/mother of the deceased is entitled to. She is a dependent
of the deceased. She is also entitled to compensation. This is
her short grievance.
2. The appellant, realising that no direction for
apportionment is made in the impugned order, had approached
the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation with a petition
to review the award passed by the Commissioner. By Annexure-
M.F.A No.247 of 2010-D 2
B order, the Commissioner has rejected the said prayer with the
observation that the appellant can lodge her grievance, if any,
when enquiry is initiated for apportioning the amount to the
dependents of the deceased.
3. Still claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned award,
the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal. We must
remind ourselves that under Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, an appeal can lie only if a question of law is
involved. There is no contention that the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner is obliged to pass an award
apportioning the amount payable by the employer. The award of
the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner can only direct
deposit of the amount and thereupon under Section 8 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Commissioner must take
steps for distribution of compensation. A dispute regarding
apportionment can certainly be raised at the stage of distribution
of compensation under Section 8 of the Act. In fact, we find that
in Annexure-B order, the Commissioner has clearly referred to
that option available to the appellant.
4. If the Commissioner chooses to issue directions
regarding apportionment in the award itself, that may not be an
illegality. But the fact that direction for apportionment has not
M.F.A No.247 of 2010-D 3
been issued in the award, cannot by itself be reckoned as
vitiating the award.
5. We are further satisfied that the appellant can be
saved of the unnecessary expenditure and wastage of resources
by our issuing a direction to the Commissioner of Workmen’s
Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram that after the compensation
amount is deposited, while considering distribution of
compensation, notice must be ordered specifically to the
appellant herein and an order regarding apportionment can and
ought to be issued only after hearing the appellant herein.
6. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner immediately.
7. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned
counsel for the appellant.
8. We do not, in these circumstances, perceive the need
to admit this appeal. This appeal is, in these circumstances,
dismissed, but subject to the above specific directions.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/