MAYFIELD ESTATE NELLAKOTTAH NILGIRIS Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question arises for consideration in this case, whether any person other than a dependent can file a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act for requiring adjudication as to the claim in relation to the deceased workman. Admittedy in this case, the respondent's wife died in the course of employment. Compensation came to be fixed at Rs. 19,200/-. It is this order which is appealled against. In so far as Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act defines 'dependant' who alone can invoke the jurisdiction and the same has not been gone into by the Court below, the order cannot be supported. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Momjee v. Maung Mia Sein 186 I.C. 93 and also B.M. Habeebulla Maricar v. Periaswami 1977 A.C.J. 517 (Mad.). The further contention is that this is not a case of suo motu enquiry in which event Section 10-A of the Act will apply. Therefore, where the party wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, it can be only by a dependent. The learned Counsel for the respondent, after taking me through the various provisions of the Act to which I will make reference shortly, contends that it is one thing to say that the jurisdiction cannot be invoked and it is another thing to say that the amount so determined and deposited cannot be disbursed. It is only at the stage of disbursement of the amount, it has to be decided as to dependency. In any event, it is submitted that where the procedure under part V has not been followed and there was no specific issue as to dependency, this Court may direct that point to be decided.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary for me to refer to some of the provisions of the Act which have appeared on the issue raised in this appeal. The The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is one to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. It cannot be gainsaid that this is a statutory liability. Every employer is subject to the provisions of the Act when he falls within the four corners of the Act when Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines 'dependent' under Clause (iii) so far as the widower like the respondent is concerned, saying 'if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death' (a) a widower. Therefore, by a reading of this definition, it is clear that there must be a material dependency as far as the widower is concerned.

(3.) BY a reading of this section, it is clear that the Commissioner has no power at all to fix the amount of compensation or the liability of the employer under the section, because once the liability is so denied, then he has no further option except to inform the dependents of the deceased workman to prefer a claim, which is contemplated under Section 10-A(4), of the Act. As a matter of fact, in B.R. Ray v. T.K. Nenglyer A.I.R. 1959 Assam 6, it has been held that there is no power given to the Commissioner to determine the amount of compensation and the liability of the employer under this section. Therefore in case of exercise of suo motu powers as is contemplated under the above section, which has been extracted in full, it will be very clear that there is no possibility of compensation being determined at the instance of anyone. At this stage itself, I may usefully refer to Rule 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924. That rule contemplates application by dependents for deposit of compensation. Under this rule the application can be made only by a dependent, since it says that a dependent of a deceased workman may apply to the Commissioner for the issue of an order to deposit compensation in respect of the death of the workman and such application shall be made in Form G. This necessarily takes me to Form G. That is set out in full as follows: