Mrs. Chandra and Ors. Vs. the Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation-ii and Anr. (15.02.2001 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....i am of the view that the apportionment made in respect of the unmarried sister of the deceased could have been little more having regard to the fact that she is yet to get married, while the widow of the deceased did not have any issue through her late husband. when consider the plight of the dependent sister who is yet to get married, i am of the view that the hardship would have been much more for the dependent sister. in that view, i feel that the apportionment made in favour of the minor sister can be increased from rs. 5,000/- to 17,000/-, while reducing the compensation apportioned in favour of the second respondent from 42,000/- to 30,000/-. i am of the view that such a small adjustment in the compensation payable to the second petitioner and the second respondent, will meet the ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. accordingly, while modifying the order impugned in the writ petition, by reducing the apportionment made in favour of the second respondent from rs. 42,000/- to 30,000/-, there shall be an increase in the compensation awarded in favour of the second petitioner from rs. 5,000/- to 17,000/-. on the above basis, the first.....

Judgment:

ORDER

P.M. Ibrahim Kalipulla, J.

1. This writ petition and W.M.P. coming on for hearing on Monday, the Twelfth Day of February, 2001 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 6.9.1993 and made herein and the records relating to the order in No. B1/6478/93 and W.C. Case No. 199/93 dated 10.8.1993 on the file of the 1st respondent the comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Mohan Das, Advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions and of Mr. G. Vadivel, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. G. Veerapathran, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:

The sole question involved in this writ petition is as to the justification or apportionment made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in respect of the compensation awarded to the various dependents namely, the widowed wife, mother, unmarried sister and minor brothers of the deceased.

2. The compensation of Rs. 58,152/- was determined as payable to the dependents of the deceased employee by the first respondent. Thereafter based on the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Labour, 5th Circle, Madras, the petitioners and the second respondent were identified as the dependents of the deceased employee. While the first petitioner is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner was the minor sister at the time of the death of the deceased, while the petitioners 3 and 4 were the minor brothers of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Though there is no specific provision as to at what rate the compensation should be apportioned amongst the various dependents, the first respondent herein apparently considering the age of the second respondent who became a widow at very young age, awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/- to be payable to her, while the remaining sum was distributed amongst the petitioners.

3. The grievance of the first petitioner is that the father of the deceased namely, the husband of the first petitioner though employed, is leading a wayward life and, therefore, they were mainly dependent on the income of the deceased and, therefore, the meagre sum apportioned in their favour by the first respondent was not justified. It is also averred in the grounds of the writ petition that in a compromise talk that took place between the first petitioner and the second respondent, an agreement was reached in the presence of legal panchayatdars in which the second respondent agreed to take 1/4th of the total amount awarded as her share. It is claimed that the said compromise was reached on 6.4.1991 in the presence of witnesses. However, no material was placed before the Court in support of the said averment.

4. Though no fault can be found with the apportionment made in respect of the younger brothers of the deceased and also the mother of the deceased, I am of the view that the apportionment made in respect of the unmarried sister of the deceased could have been little more having regard to the fact that she is yet to get married, while the widow of the deceased did not have any issue through her late husband. When consider the plight of the dependent sister who is yet to get married, I am of the view that the hardship would have been much more for the dependent sister. In that view, I feel that the apportionment made in favour of the minor sister can be increased from Rs. 5,000/- to 17,000/-, while reducing the compensation apportioned in favour of the second respondent from 42,000/- to 30,000/-. I am of the view that such a small adjustment in the compensation payable to the second petitioner and the second respondent, will meet the ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while modifying the order impugned in the writ petition, by reducing the apportionment made in favour of the second respondent from Rs. 42,000/- to 30,000/-, there shall be an increase in the compensation awarded in favour of the second petitioner from Rs. 5,000/- to 17,000/-. On the above basis, the first respondent is directed to make out the consequential benefits payable to the petitioner and second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the W.M.P. is closed.