Skip to content


Kunhipathumma and anr. Vs. the Divisional Personal Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inII(1984)ACC151
AppellantKunhipathumma and anr.
RespondentThe Divisional Personal Officer
Excerpt:
- - 3. this inclusive definition of the term 'workman' in the act clearly indicates that the right of the dependants to pursue the proceedings instituted by the workman survives him, and, therefore, in their own right they are entitled to institute the appeal......definition of the term 'workman' in the act clearly indicates that the right of the dependants to pursue the proceedings instituted by the workman survives him, and, therefore, in their own right they are entitled to institute the appeal. there is neither the need nor the scope for an application for impleading the dependants as a step precedent to the filing of the appeal. the right of the petitioners to file the appeal flows from the original order itself as they automatically step into the shoes of the workman on his death by virtue of the inclusive definition contained in section 2(n) of the act to which reference has already been made.4. the petitioners are entitled to file the appeal without the aid of an order on application for impleading them. the impleading petition is.....
Judgment:

K. Kharkaran Ag. C.J.

1. This is purported to be an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the petitioners, who are stated to be the legal representatives of the applicant in W.C. No. 58 of 1982 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode, the said applicant having died on 21-5-1983 after the order against which the appeal is sought to be filed was posted. The office expressed doubt regarding the maintainability of the application under Section 151 C.P.C. for impleading the petitioners in the appeal sought to be filed.

2. We do not think that an application in the nature of the one which is before us is contemplated for the purpose of filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). The term workmen as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act reads as follows:

(n) 'workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is:

(i) ....

(ii) ....

(iii)....

and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall where the work-man is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them.

3. This inclusive definition of the term 'workman' in the Act clearly indicates that the right of the dependants to pursue the proceedings instituted by the workman survives him, and, therefore, in their own right they are entitled to institute the appeal. There is neither the need nor the scope for an application for impleading the dependants as a step precedent to the filing of the appeal. The right of the petitioners to file the appeal flows from the original order itself as they automatically step into the shoes of the workman on his death by virtue of the inclusive definition contained in Section 2(n) of the Act to which reference has already been made.

4. The petitioners are entitled to file the appeal without the aid of an order on application for impleading them. The impleading petition is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //