FA/227220/2002 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2272 of 2002 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI =================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =================================== PARSHOTTAMBHAI RAMJIBHAI PARMAR & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus REKHABEN PARBATBHAI,WD/O DECD.JAYSUKHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI & 4 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR DC SEJPAL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR MB PARIKH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Defendant(s) : 5, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/07/2008 FA/227220/2002 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 16th October 2001 passed by Labour Court, Amreli in Workmen's Compensation Case No.4/1999 below Exh.21 whereby the said application came to be rejected. 2. One Jaisukbhai Parmar, son of the present appellants was working as Conductor in State Transport Corporation. He expired while in service and therefore his wife and children filed Workmen's Compensation Case No.4/1999 before the Labour Court, Amreli. The said case was allowed and ordered the S.T. Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,79,400/- to the wife and children of the deceased. The present appellants therefore filed application Exh.20 praying to be joined as parties stating that they were dependent upon the deceased Jaysukbhai Parmar. The Labour Court rejection the said appeal by order dated 16th October 2001, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. D.C. Sajpal, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Jaysukhbhai and therefore they can be termed as dependents within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act. He submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that name of the respondent no.1 is nominated in the record of the respondent no.5 Corporation as legal heir and FA/227220/2002 3/3 JUDGMENT representative of the deceased Jaysukhbhai. He, therefore submitted that the appellants' application ought to have been allowed. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is found that the Labour court has elaborately discussed the issue and has found that the present appellants are not dependents on the deceased employee. Even the ration card and election card, etc. showed that they are living separately. No evidence was produced on record to show that the appellants were dependent upon the deceased Jaysukhbhai. Even the learned Advocate for the appellants have failed to point out any reason to take a contrary view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Labour Court. This appeal is, therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar