IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 MFA.No. 247 of 2010() -------------------------------- W.C.C. NO. 65/2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ................ APPELLANT(S): 4TH OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------- KUNJI, RAJI NIVAS, DECENT MUKKU, MUDAPURAM P.O., KIZHUVILAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT & OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BINDHU, D/O.VILASINI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURAKKADA, KURAKKADA P.O., PIN-695 104, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYANKEEZHU. 695 104. 2. CHANDRIKA, BINDHU BHAVAN, VAKKATHUVILA, KOCHALUMMOODU, MUDAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 314. 3. VINOD, KOOTHANGAL VEEDU, KAILATHUKONAM, VEILOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 543. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 101. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss 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/