This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation, Hill Fort Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad, respondent No.1 in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, dated 13.01.2004.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein as petitioners filed E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Court’ for the purpose of convenience) praying for a declaration that the order passed by the appellant herein, the first respondent vide letter No.52.N/19/13/54/93-CB, ID, dated 10.11.2000, as illegal and void, for implementation of the order passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.716 of 1995 at 35:35:30 ratio among the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent therein and also ordering first respondent to recover amount from the second respondent which she had received hundred percent benefits and pay the same to the present respondents 1 and 2 in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioners 1 and 2 in E.I. Case referred to supra, at 50 percent each. The third respondent herein Mrs. S.Madhavi was shown as second respondent in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001. The court below recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, marked Exs.P-1 to P-34 and Exs.R-1 to R-5 and came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioners therein in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001, are entitled to succeed partly and directed the present appellant, the first respondent therein, to pay the dependent benefits to the said petitioners from 27.3.2002 onwards at the rate of 50 percent each and directed the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed.

3. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the appellant-respondent No.1 would point out that this is a case where on the strength of a memo said to have been filed by the third respondent S.Madhavi, the court recorded certain findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the parents are entitled to the relief. The learned counsel would submit that in the light of Section 2 (6A) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) read with Section 52 of the said Act, these parents are not automatically entitled to such benefits and inasmuch as it is a legislative gap unless suitable amendment is introduced in this direction, the order made by the court below as such cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision in Gurdit Singh V. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (1960 (2) LLJ 446).

4. Per contra, Sri C.Niranjan Rao, the learned counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that these are unfortunate parents of the deceased and they are sufficiently old. The learned counsel also would contend that this piece of legislation being welfare legislation, the provisions are to be liberally construed and in the absence of wife, who had gone away out of the family after re-marriage, the court below recorded reasons on the strength of the memo filed by the third respondent and came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2, the aged parents, being the dependents are entitled to the benefits. The learned counsel also would submit that on a careful reading of the provisions of the Act in general, the object of the Act and also Section 2 (6A) of the Act and Section 52 of the Act, it is clear that even the old parents would fall under definition of dependents, and hence, the findings recorded by the court below need not be disturbed by this court.

5. Heard the counsel.

6. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 referred to supra.

7. This civil mis