ORDER
Sriniyasan, J.
1. I am disposing of the main writ petition itself, as it is not maintainable. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated as follows:-
'The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 25.11.1988 also suffers from patent illegality and error apparent on the face of the order itself. Therefore the remedy open to me is to approach this Hon'ble Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it would be of onerous duty to me if I have to seek my remedy in any other forum and in any other Court'.
The impugned order dated 25.11.1988 passed by the second respondent has upheld the claim of the third respondent herein for payment of compensation as the dependent of the deceased worker. An appeal lies against the said order under Section 30(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The affidavit of the petitioner does not refer to the existence of the statutory remedy by way of appeal; nor does it explain as to why that remedy was not resorted to by the petitioner. There is no avernment in the affidavit that the statutory appeal is not efficacious or it is too dilatory to grant quick relief to the petitioner herein. The Supreme Court has held in The Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. J.H. Industries : 1979(4)ELT511(SC) that unless the alternative remedy is not efficacious or is too dilatory to grant quick relief to the petitioner, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be invoked. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 30(c) of the Act.
2. The petitioner claims to be the paternal uncle of the deceased worker, as according to his affidavit, the deceased worker was the son of his brother P.L. Veeriah. The third respondent admittedly is the mother of the deceased worker. Under Section 2(d) of the Act, 'dependent' has been defined as follows:
'dependent' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman namely:-
(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried and legitimate daughter or 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 attained 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,
(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate if married and a minor orif widowed and a minor,
(d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister of 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 grand parent if no parent of the workman is alive'.
3. The third respondent falls under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d), as the widowed mother of the deceased worker. The petitioner claims, to fall under Section 2(d)(iii)(b) as a parent other than widowed mother. The petitioner cannot claim to be a parent as he is admittedly an uncle of the deceased worker.
4. It is contended that the third respondent is living with a Muslim gentleman and she had deserted the deceased worker and therefore, she is not entitled to claim as a dependent. The Act does not prescribe any such restriction. If she is the widowed mother, she is entitled to claim as a dependent, whether she was actually depending on the earnings of the deceased worker or not, whereas under other clauses a condition has been imposed that the claimant should be either wholly dependent or partly dependent on the earnings of the deceased worker at the time of his death in order to be dependent. In these circumstances there is no case whatever for the petitioner and this writ petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed and the Rule Nisi is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.