D/L.17. July 28, 2026. KAUSHIK F.M.A. 1205 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2026 Bhupen Mahato VS. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL & Ors. Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya … for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Singh Mr. Aniruddha Singh .for the respondent/Insurance Company. Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay … for the respondent/WBSEDCL 1. This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against an order dated 19th May, 2025 passed in Claim Case No. 39 of 2024 by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation (Durgapur), Paschim Bardhaman. 2. Briefly, the appellant representing two major brothers of the deceased Sujan Mahato had filed an application seeking compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. 3. Upon filing of the application, the respondent no. 3 being the United India Insurance Company had filed an application raising a point of maintainability that under the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Act major brothers of a deceased workman do not fall within the category of dependants as defined under the Act. 4. By the impugned order, the Commissioner had dismissed the application filed by the appellant on 2 the ground that the same was not maintainable since major brothers are not dependants. 5. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the issue of maintainability ought not to have been decided in a summary manner and the same should have been adjudicated upon only after taking of evidence at the final hearing. 6. On behalf of respondent no. 3, it is submitted that in view of the settled position of law and the express language under section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923, major brothers were not intended to be covered as dependants and ex facie do not fall within the zone of consideration. 7. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923, reads as follows: (1)In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,— *** (b) "Commissioner" means a Commissioner for Employee's Compensation appointed under section 20; (c) "compensation" means compensation as provided for by this Act; (d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased employee, namely:— (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the employee 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 employee at the time of his death,— (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, 3 (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the employee is alive; 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lrs Of Dhapu Kanwear And Ors 2024 RJJD 33748, it has been held as follows: 25. It is clear from the bare perusal of section 2(1)(d) of the Act that major brothers do no fall within the definition of 'dependant' as they are excluded and only minor brother is said to be dependant. Thus, the first question raised in the appeal is answered in the negative. 9. In, The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subhas and Ors. ILR 2022 Karnataka 511, it has been held as follows: 6. There cannot be any dispute about the legal position that only those persons who come within the definition of ‘ dependent’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, alone can maintain claim petition and are entitled to receive compensation for the employment related death of a person. The case of the present claimants, if at all, should come under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) which states that a claim petition is maintainable by persons “ if wholly dependent on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm:”. What is relevant to be noticed in the above provision and which is decisive on the point in issue is, such persons who come under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) are not only persons who have attained the age of 18 years, but they should also be infirm. The two requirements, namely, attaining the age of 18 years and a person who is infirm are joined by a conjunctive. Therefore, if the so called dependents, if they have attained the age of 18 years, in order to be eligible to claim compensation for the death of a mother or a father on whom the dependency is claimed, should also be infirm. In this case, the only fact that has been established is that, these two claimants have attained the age of 18 years, but there is nothing placed on record to show that they are also infirm. Obviously the idea underlying the entitlement for compensation under this Act is that the support by way of compensation is awardable to only such persons who are otherwise not in a position to 4 earn their livelihood either on account of their minority or on account of their infirmity if they have attained the age of majority and such other debilitating factors specifically enumerated in the provision itself. These essential ingredients are missing in this case and since these claimants do not come under the definition of ‘dependent’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, they cannot be regarded as ‘dependents’ within the meaning of this Act and therefore the finding of the Learned Court below that they are entitled to award of compensation is illegal and without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following: 10. It is an admitted position that the claim for compensation has been filed by the major brothers of the deceased. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. The order is reasoned. In such circumstances, there is no ground for admission of this appeal. There is no question of law which arises for consideration. The appeal is not admitted. 11. FMA 1205 of 2025 along with connected interlocutory application stands dismissed. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)