(1.) By this appeal, under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short, hereinafter), the appellants, who are heirs of the deceased victim of an employment injuries, have challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Nadiad, on 5-5-1981, in Workmen Compensation Case No. 25 of 1978. In order to appreciate the merits of this appeal and challenge against it, it would be necessary to set out material and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal.
(2.) The present appellants are the original applicants and the present respondent is the original opponent. They are, hereinafter, referred to as the 'applicants' and 'opponent' for the sake of convenience and brevity.
(3.) The applicants, who are the parents of the deceased victim of an employment accident, claimed compensation of Rs. 18,000.00, stating that their son died on account of injuries sustained by him out of and in the course of employment with the opponent-employer. The applicants, inter alia, contended that their deceased son was working as a labourer with opponent at the monthly salary of Rs. 195.00. Thus, the deceased was working as a 'workman' with opponent. Opponent was working as a contractor. The deceased was working as a labourer with opponent alongwith other labourers in execution of the contract work of the opponent which was going on near village Kuni, in Thasara Taluka, District Kheda. The labourers were engaged for digging mud and earth. The deceased was also engaged in the same work. The unfortunate accident occurred, on 14-10-1978, between 6 to 6.30 a.m. The deceased was engaged in digging earth, at the relevant point of time. On the day of the accident, on account of sliding of heap of earth, the deceased was crushed under the same and he sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed on the spot. Deceased was the only son of his parents and he was the only bread-winner. The applicants served the opponent with a notice. Opponent replied the notice but did not comply with it. With the result, the applicants had to knock the door of justice for getting compensation for the unfortunate demise of their son in an employment accident by invoking the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act.