Parents of a deceased workman are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, if they are wholly or in part dependent on the deceased's earnings.

G. C. Garg, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Bhalinda, dated June 4, 1988, whereby the application filed by the appellant-applicants has been dismissed by holding that they are not entitled to compensation on account of the death of their son Harnek Singh.

2. Harnek Singh, son of the appellants, who was working as a driver with the respondents, died on May 15, 1985 while on duty in the course of his employment. He was about 36 years of his age and drawing Rs.924.45 paise as his salary on the date of his death. He was a bachelor. The appellants made an application for payment of compensation alleging themselves to be the dependents on the deceased. It was resisted by filing a written statement. It was alleged therein that at the time of death, deceased Harnek Singh was not on duty. Allegations regarding age, salary or the deceased being employed with the respondents, were not denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Harnek Singh deceased has not died during the course of his employment? OPR 2. Whether the claim of the applicants is lime barred? OPR.3. Whether the applicants are not entitled to claim any compensation? OPR.4. Relief. Learned Commissioner on appraisal of evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that death of Harnek Singh took place while he was on duty in the course of his employment and consequently returned a finding under Issue No.1 in favour of the applicants. The claim application was held to be within time. Under Issue No.3, it was however, found that 1 the mother of the deceased, i. e. applicant No.2 was not entitled to compensation as her husband was alive being applicant No.1. Compensation to applicant No.1 was denied by observing that if he was solely dependent on the income of the ] deceased son, he should have led independent evidence that his only source of income was the income of his deceased son and that he (applicant No.1) had another son who was not contributing anything for his dependency. With these observations and findings, the application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants i. e. the parents of deceased Harnek Singh, have filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the learned Commissioner has committed serious irregularities and illegalities in holding that the appellants are not entitled to compensation on account of the death of their son Harnek Singh who died while on duty in the course of his employment. Learned counsel further submitted that it was not necessary for the appellants to prove that they were wholly dependent on the deceased or the income of the deceased was the only source of their income, so as to entitle them to get compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act ). Learned counsel further submitted that even if the appellants were partly dependent on the earnings of the deceased-workman at the time of his death, they were still entitled to compensation under the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the provisions of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act, which are necessary to be noticed at this stage. Sec.2

(1) (d) reads as under: -2. Definitions- (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely,

(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " A bare reading of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) (d) of Sec.2 reveals t