IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 Date of Decision : November 19, 2008 Pritam Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No. 6. T.P.S. MANN, J. Challenge in the appeal is to the order dated September 27, 1985 passed by Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Amritsar, whereby application filed by the appellants for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants was dismissed. Gurmej Singh was employed with the Punjab State Electricity Board. However, on 2.7.1981 he died as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The appellants, who are his parents sought the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -2- (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as they had been dependant upon him. Respondents No. 1 to 5 opposed the claim petition by pleading that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands as they concealed the fact that Gurmej Singh had left behind Sukchain Kaur as his widow. Moreover, the death of Gurmej Singh was caused due to his own negligence. Respondent No. 6 also claimed that she, being widow of Gurmej Singh, was the only one who was dependant upon him and, thereafter, entitled to receive the amount. Learned Commissioner framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties :- 1. Whether Gurmej Singh died on 2.7.1981 due to electric shock ? OPA. 2. Whether the applicants were dependant of the deceased ? OPA. 3. Whether Shmt. Sukchain Kaur widow of Gurmej Singh has remarried and is not entitled to any compensation ? OPA. 4. Whether the applicants have got no locus standi to file the present petition ? 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? OPR. 6. Relief F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -3- After going through the material on the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Commissioner held that respondent No. 6 being widow of Gurmej Singh and who had not re-married after the death of Gurmej Singh was entitled to receive the amount of compensation and, that too, in preference to the appellants who were parents of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the parents of the deceased employee under Section 30 of the Act. The only issue which arises for determination in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to receive the amount of compensation, being parents of deceased Gurmej Singh, or respondent No. 6, who stood married to the deceased employee at the time of the accident. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines the term “dependant” as fol- lows :- (d) "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a de- ceased workman, namely :- (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmar- ried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has at- tained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death,- (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -4- (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegiti- mate daughter or a daughter legitimate or ille- gitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a wid- owed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the work- man is alive; Explanation : For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively. The appellants are the parents of the deceased. Pritam Kaur, mother of the deceased was not a widowed mother so that she could be termed as a dependant of deceased workman. The parents could be considered dependants of deceased workman only if they were wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. There is no material on the file that the appellants were dependents on the earnings of deceased workman. It was not disputed that the appellants had four other children, who were also earning hands. Therefore, the appellants were not shown to be wholly or in part dependant upon their deceased son. On the other hand, it had been admitted by Pritam Kaur-appellant that her deceased son Gurmej Singh left behind his widow Sukchain Kaur, F.A.O. No. 1155 of 1985 -5- respondent No. 6. Mere fact that Sukchain Kaur, respondent No. 6 could get remarried is no ground to disentitle her from the compensation or to hold that she was not a dependant of deceased workman. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 states that the said respondent has not remarried. This stand of respondent No. 6 could not be refuted by learned counsel representing the appellants. If that be the position even today, i.e. more than 23 years after the passing of the impugned order by learned Commissioner, it was respondent No. 6, who was exclusively entitled to receive the amount of compensation and not the appellants. The findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner, while denying the payment of compensation amount to the appellants were based on proper appreciation of the material available on the file. These findings of facts cannot be disturbed in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, which is maintainable only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, being without any merit. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 19, 2008 JUDGE satish