Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Superintending Engineering, ... vs S. Kannaiyan & 2 Others on 25 March, 1998
In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this court to the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvanamalai Electricity System, North Arcot District Vs. S.Kannaiyan & 2 others reported in 1999 (III) CTC 416. In the said case the learned single judge has clearly analysed the difference between clause (i) of Section 2(d) and other clauses of Section 2(d) and has clearly observed that only those who are found in Clause (i) would be the dependents without any further proof of dependency on the earnings of the workman and that those who come under the subsequent clauses, namely clause (ii) and (iii) have to prove their dependency on the earnings of the deceased workman to make themselves entitled to claim compensation. I am in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned single judge in the above said case. Any one coming under clause (i) of Section 2(d) shall be the dependent without any further proof of dependency on the earnings of the deceased workman. Anyone coming under clause (ii) of Section 2(d), namely a son or daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm shall be a dependent provided he or she was wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of this death. So far as the other persons who come under clause (iii) are concerned, to be recognised as dependents entitled to claim compensation, they have to prove that they were either wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death.
1