1 CGHC010266592022 2026:CGHC:37270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 941 of 2022 1 - Laaldeep Choudhary S/o Ramji Choudhary @ Daharu Choudhary Aged About 50 Years R/o Durga Mandir, New Khursipar, Labour Colony, Zone - Ii, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Raj Kumari W/o Ravindra Nath Choudhary Aged About 37 Years R/o Durga Mandir, New Khursipar, Labour Colony, Zone - Ii, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Sardev Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Qr. No. Lc-4, Padum Nagar Bhilai - 3, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Trailer) 2 - The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Rajendra Park Chowk, G.E. Road Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Respondents For appellants : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv. For Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 18-8-2026 2 1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law. 2. This MAC has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as the ‘Act of 1923’) by the appellants/claimants, challenging the judgment dated 23-6-2022 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Labour Court, Durg, in Case No. 24/EC Act/Fatal, whereby the application filed by the claimants under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 has been rejected on the ground that, since the appellants/applicants are the adult brother and sister of deceased Bhikham Kumar Choudhari, they cannot be held to be dependents upon the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants would submit that, though both the appellants/applicants are the adult brother and sister of the deceased, they were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. Hence, merely on account of their being adults, the application filed by them under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 could not have been rejected. Hence, she prays that the appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial questions of law. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner-cum-Labour Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and the record of the Labour Court. 6. Indisputably, the claimants are the brother and sister of the deceased, aged about 50 years and 37 years, respectively. Both of them are also married and, as such, are competent to maintain themselves. 3 Therefore, they cannot be said to have been dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. 7. Even otherwise, the expression ‘dependent’ has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act of 1923, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,— (a) (omitted) (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) ‘dependent’ means any of the following relatives of a deceased employee, namely:— (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, and unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) 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; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent 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, (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. …” 4 8. …” 4 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provision specifically shows that an adult brother or sister, particularly when married, has not been contemplated as a ‘dependent’ upon the deceased employee. 9. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid statutory provision, the rejection of the application filed by the appellants/applicants by the learned Labour Court, holding that they were not dependents upon the deceased, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Accordingly, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the instant appeal. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is rejected at the motion stage itself. 11. The record of the Labour Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.08.20 15:50:52 +0530