The provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, should be interpreted liberally to advance its purpose of providing social security to dependents of deceased employees.

1. 1. Petitioners Bhanwar Lai and Smt. Bhuri Bai are the parents of deceased Bheru Gujar, who was an insured person under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as The Act.') According to the petitioners talc Bheru died of an employment injury, received during the course of his employment, on 19.7.1985. The petitioners further alleged that late Bheru had married Samhhari just twelve months prior to his death. After the death of Bheru, his widow Samhhari remarried with in fifteen days and went away to her new home.

2. The petitioners applied for dependents benefit under the Act which was denied to them by the E.S.I. Corporation on the ground that at the time of insured person's death his wife Samhhari, who fell in the first category of dependents was alive and therefore the petitioners who were in the Second category of dependents were not entitled to dependent's benefit under the Act,

3. The petitioners contend that the ESI Corporation is not paying any dependents benefit to the widow of late Bheru on the ground that she has remarried and are also not paying the petitioners on the ground that they are not eligible for the benefit in the presence of the widow. According to the petitioners this act of the ESI Corporation was extremely arbitrary especially when other remedies including that under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been barred under Section 51 of the Act. The result is that the ESl Corporation has deemed itself absolved of all the responsibility to pay dependents benefit in the case. The petitioners have also prayed for declaring the provisions of the Act, which permit such a situation, to he declared ultra vires the Constitution of India being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.

4. The relevant provisions of the Act as, they stood at the time of the death of Shri Bheru in 1985 were as under:

"Section 2(6A): "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person. lamely:

(i) a widow, minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and

(ii) ...................

(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death:

(a) a parent other than a widowed mother;

(b) ......................

" Section 52, Dependents Benefit: (1) If an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act whether or not he was in receipt of any periodical payment for temporary disablement in respect of the injury dependent's benefit shall he payable in accordance with the provision of the First Schedule to his dependents specified in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6A) of Section 2.

(2) In case the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependents as aforesaid, the dependent's benefit shall he paid to the other dependents of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule.
Relevant provisions of the First Schedule (since repealed) were as follows:

" 8. In the case of death of the insured person the dependents benefit shall he payable to his widow and children as follows;

(a) to the widow during life or until remarriage an amount equivalent to three-fifth of the full rate and if there are two or more widows, the amount payable to the widows as aforesaid shall be divided equally between the widows;

(h) .........................

(c) .......................

9. In case the deceased person does not leave a widow or legitimate or adopted child dependents benefit shall be payable to the other dependents as follows:-

(a) to a parent of grand parent for life at an amount equivalent to two-tenth of the full rate provided that if there are two or more parents or grand parents, the amount payable to the parents or grand parents as aforesaid shall be equally divided between them.

(b) ......................."

5. The difficulty has arisen in the case because of the provision of Section 52 of the which pr