The definition of 'dependent' in Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is wide enough to encompass even parents of the deceased and that an inference of dependency can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. - This is an appeal against the judjement dated 22-9-1981 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Sri Ganganagar (here in after referred to as 'the Commissioner').

2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that deceased Santosh a minor received injuries during the course of employment of non-applicant on 5-12-1976, which resulted on his death on 24-12-1976. The father of the deceased filed an application before the Commissioner claiming compenstion as dependent of deceased and claimed a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs. 5/- per day as wages.

3. The non-applicant contested the claim and denied the employment of the deceased with them and pleaded complete ignorance about the accident. It was contended that the deceased expired on account of accident some where else and not in his factory.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed. The applicant examined himself as PW 1 and PW 2 Gyan Singh. As against this, non applicant examined himself as DW 1.

5. The learned Commissioner after recording the necessary evidence came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased took place during the course of the employment of the non-applicant and he determined the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs 13,500/-and also allowed interest in the sum of Rs. 3,240/- at rate of 6% simple interest upto December, 1981. He also levied a penalty under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and also allowed court fees and witnesses expenses. Thus, total sum of Rs. 23,570/'-were awarded as compensation. Aggrieved against this order of the Commissioner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-non-applicant.

6. Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious irregularity in accepting that the deceased was employed with the appellant-non-applicant. He has also contended that there is no medical evidence on record to show that whether he died out of the accident occurred in the factory of the non-applicant employer. Learned Counsel further submitted that no notice under Section 10 of the Act was given to the employer before filing the claim petition. Learned Counsel also submitted that no evidence has been produced to show the dependency of the parents on the minor son. He has joined the issue on the question of interest and penalty.

7. Mr. Parihar, appearing for the respondent has opposed the contentions raised by Mr. Singhal.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record.

9. The first question which arises for determination is whether the deceased was in the employment of the appellant-non-applicant or not. Though the learned Commissioner has used certain statements in his judjement which were recorded during the criminal proceedings, but that was not proper on the part of the learned Commissioner to have referred to the evidence which was not recorded before him nor was tendered in proper manner before him. However, before me there are statements of PW 1 and PW 2. PW 1 is the father of the deceased Santosh, has deposed that his son was working in the factory of the appellant and while he was working on the Charkhi and putting cotton in the Charkhi his hand was stuck in the Charkhi machine. The Charkhi was stopped and the deceased was taken to the Hospital where he expired after 17-18 days. PW 2 Gyan Singh is said to be co-worker in the same factory and he has also supported the testimony of PW 1 Surjeet. As against this DW 1 Om Prakash has denied that the deceased was at any time in the employment of the appellant or even PW 2 Gyan Singh was in his service at any time.

10. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner and I think that there was sufficient material before the learned Commissioner to hold that the dece