( 1 ) PREMILABEN, widow of Dashrathbhai motibhai Naik, appellant, original claimant, has filed this appeal under the provisions of section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation act, against the judgement and order dated 30. 7. 2003 passed by the Workmen s compensation Commissioner, Vadodara, in workmen s Compensation Application No. 87 of 1997 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application of the applicant mother of the deceased on the ground of not dependant of the deceased.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has submitted the following facts which emerge from the record.

( 3 ) PREMILABEN, appellant, and dashrathbhai Motibhai Naik happen to be mother and father of deceased Naresh dashrath Naik. Deceased Naresh Dashtrath was aged 18 years. He was working with respondent No. 2 as Conductor-cum-Cleaner of the Luxury bus. Respondent No. 1 was driver of the bus and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the bus. The appellant submits that on 18. 3. 1986 there was a trip of vehicle from Vadodara to mathura. At that time, near Krishna Police station, Mathura (Uttarpradesh) when the son of the appellant was unloading the luggage which is kept on the top of the bus, due to the electrical over-head high tension wire on the roof of the bus, her son expired.

( 4 ) THE appellant also contended that at the relevant time her son was receiving Rs. 2,000/- as salary from respondent No. 2 and he was aged 18 years at the time of the incident.

( 5 ) AFTER the incident, both father and mother addressed a notice dated 28. 2. 1997 to respondent No. 2 for obtaining compensation with interest and penalty. Thereafter, before the respondents could give reply to the notice for compensation, the father of deceased Naresh Dashrath expired on 12. 4. 1997. Thereafter, on 4. 12. 1997, as the father of deceased Naresh expired, the mother Premilaben filed workmen Compensation Application No. 87 of 1997 before the Workmen s compensation Commissioner, Vadodara, under the Workmen s Compensation Act for claiming compensation against all the three respondents.

( 6 ) THE learned Commissioner under workmen s Compensation Act, Vadodara, after hearing the parties, rejected the application on the ground that in this case the accident occurred on 18. 3. 1996 and the father of deceased Naresh and husband of the appellant expired on 12. 4. 1997. Therefore, the applicant was not widowed mother on the date of accident or on the date of death of her son - deceased workman. The learned Commissioner for workmen s Compensation has stated that there is neither a pleading nor proof regarding dependency of the applicant on the earning of the deceased.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order, the appellant had originally filed Civil Revision application before this Court under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. However, after the deletion of Section 115 of the c. P. C. , the appellant has converted the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereafter the present appeal has been filed before this Court. The appellant has made the following submissions:

( 8 ) MR. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the term "dependant" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act which reads as follows:

" "dependant means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely, (i) a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, and unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter or a widowed mother: and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death (a) widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother"

( 9 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that it is an admitted fact that son was earning and both the parent