9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 39 - HC - Indian LawsDistribution of compensation granted - Divorce of husband and wife - Whether a divorced wife is a widow and hence dependent of the husband at the time of his death, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 - Held that - for the purpose of enquiry under the Act, 1923, the respondent cannot be said to be enjoying the status of widow of deceased Kishore. Once we find that so far as the enquiry under the Act, 1923 is concerned, the respondent was not the widow of deceased Kishore, she would be out of the scope and ambit of the definition of the term, dependent as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, which describes, inter alia, a widow of a deceased workman as his dependant. respondent cannot be termed as a widow in this case and as such the first impugned order passed by learned Commissioner, Chandrapur cannot be sustained in law. It would then follow that the subsequent order refusing to revise the first order can also be not upheld - Following decision of Smt. Rambai Vs. Ramesh Kumar reported at 1995 (7) TMI 421 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of appellants.
Issues:
Distribution of compensation amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to legal heirs and dependents of deceased worker. Interpretation of the term "widow" and "dependent" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Distribution of Compensation Amount The case involved the distribution of compensation following the death of a worker due to a workplace accident. The deceased worker's employer had deposited compensation with the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The widow and children of the deceased worker filed an application for distribution of the compensation amount under Section 8(4) of the Act. The Commissioner divided the compensation equally between the widow and the children. Dissatisfied with this decision, the legal heirs moved for variation of the distribution order under Section 8(8) of the Act. The Commissioner rejected the application, leading to the appeal before the High Court. Issue 2: Interpretation of "Widow" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act The substantial question of law before the High Court was whether a divorced wife could be considered a widow and a dependent of the deceased worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The appellants argued that the respondent, who was the first wife of the deceased but divorced before his death, should not be entitled to a share of the compensation as a widow. The Court examined the evidence, including an affidavit and the lack of contestation by the respondent. Referring to legal precedents, the Court held that a divorced woman cannot be considered a widow for the purposes of the Act. The Court emphasized that the respondent, having been divorced from the deceased worker, did not qualify as a widow under the Act. Court's Decision The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders that allocated 50% of the compensation to the respondent. The Court directed the entire compensation amount to be equally distributed among all the appellants, recognizing them as the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased worker. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the term "widow" under the Act and the specific circumstances of the case, where the respondent's divorced status precluded her from being considered a widow entitled to a share of the compensation.
|
