JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2018 passed below Exhibits 10 and 12 in Workman Compensation Application No. 2/2017, wherein and whereby the application filed for condonation of delay and application for joining legal heirs in the compensation proceedings have been allowed.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Hitendra D. Rajput appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Workman Compensation allowing the applications is illegal since such application is filed by the elder brother of the deceased employee after his father, who filed the original application seeking compensation, passed away. He has submitted that the respondent is the elder brother, who being a major, cannot be allowed to be brought on record in the compensation proceedings for claiming compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act") since the elder brother, who is not dependent and major, has been excluded from the definition of "dependent" as stipulated in Section 2(d) of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in case of B.M. Habeebullah Maricar v. Periaswami and Ors., AIR 1997 Madras 330. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhri appearing for the respondent has submitted that since the father of the respondent, who had initiated the proceedings of compensation after the death of his son i.e. the younger brother of the respondent, passed away on 19.06.2017, the respondent filed an application in the original workman compensation proceedings for condonation of delay and for bringing him as a legal heir on record of such proceedings. He has submitted that the respondent being the only dependent and legal heir of the deceased employee/workman, the order passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation is just and proper and the same may not be set aside. He has submitted that such application is maintainable, as it is filed being a legal heir of the deceased employee and not as a dependent. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of and Andhra Pradesh in case of Mandadi Adilakshmi v. Vallabhaneni Siva Prasad and Ors., 2013 LawSuit (AP) 317, the judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation v. P.V. Mohanan, 1988 LawSuit (Kerala) 11 and the Division Bench decision dated 14.10.1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Karnataka in case of Kaveri Structurals v. Bhagyam. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be entertained.

4. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length.

5. The short issue involved in the present writ petition is that whether the respondent, who is the elder brother of the deceased employee/workman and is major can pursue the proceedings initiated by his father under the Act. On the demise of his son one Balairam Ramlotavan Kori, filed a Workman Compensation Application (Fatal) No. 2 of 2017 before the Commissioner, Ahmedabad claiming compensation. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, Shri Balairam Ramlotavan Kori passed away on 19.06.2017. On his demise, the respondent, who is the elder son and also the elder brother of the deceased employee, filed a delay condonation application below Exh. 10 and also filed an application for joining him as legal heir below Exh. 12. By the order dated 07.07.2018, the Commissioner, Workman Compensation allowed both the applications and the respondent was ordered to be brought on record of the proceedings as a legal heir.

6. At this stage, it would be referred to the provisions of Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines "dependent". The same reads as under:-

"2. Definitions-

(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives o