D. H. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) FIRST Appeal No. 342 of 1982 and First Appeal No. 343 of 1982 arose out of Workmens Compensation Cases Nos. 39 of 1979 and 40 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) and Ex-Officer Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act at Nadiad. Both the cases arose out of the same accident and hence both the cases were tried together the evidence was recorded together and both of them were disposed of by a common judgment pronounced on 30-9-1981 whereby both the claim petitions were dismissed. ( 2 ) IT was the case of the appellants that the respondent was having a factory for manufacturing crackers in village Mogri taluka Anand district Kheda. The deceased were the employees under the Workmens Compensation Act with the opponent. When the deceased were on duty on 26-9-1979 at about 12-00 to 12-30 p. m a fire occurred with the result that the workmen named Shafimiya son of the applicants in Workmens Compensation Case No. 39 of 1979 and Vijaykumar son of the applicants in Workmens Compensation Case No. 40 of 1979 died. At the time of the accident both the deceased were drawing the salary of Rs. 180. 00 per month. In both the cases the appellant applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 22 0 approximately. ( 3 ) BOTH the cases were resisted by the respondents on the common ground that the deceased were not the employees under the Workmens Compensation Act but they were casual labourers. It was also contended that the deceased were not drawing Rs. 180. 00 per month as wages. It was also contended that the appellants in both the cases were not the dependents of the deceased. ( 4 ) THE trial Judge framed issues at Exh. 25. He held that the deceased were not the employees of the respondent at the time of their death under the Workmens Compensation Act. He also negatived the claim of the appellants that the deceased died during the course of employment as alleged. He also found that the appellants were not the dependents of the deceased. ( 5 ) I have perused the judgment as well as the evidence on the record. In order to claim compensation it is necessary for the appellants to prove that they were dependents on the deceased. He also found that the appellants were not the dependents of the deceased. ( 5 ) I have perused the judgment as well as the evidence on the record. In order to claim compensation it is necessary for the appellants to prove that they were dependents on the deceased. The decision on this question is vital for the maintainability of the applications. I say so on the strength of a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. M. Habeebullah Marciar v. Periaswami and others 1977 A. C. J. 517. The Index-notes run as under:" (A) Workmens Compensation Act 1923 secs. 2 (1) (d) (n) 8 9 - Workman - Meaning of Scope of sec. 9 - It applies not only to compensation payable to workman alive but also one who is dead Workman died while on duty-Mother of deceased workman filed compensation application-During the pendency of proceedings mother died Legal representatives of mother applied for substitution Commissioner allowed substitution Whether legal representatives of the claimant are entitled for compensation Held no because the benefit which the act provided was for the workman himself and his dependents and to no others. (Emphasis supplied)"the Full Bench has elaborately discussed the question as to whether a legal representative who is not a dependent can claim compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. The Full Bench has held that question in the negative. It is observed:"the object of the Act was thus to make provision for the payment of compensation to a workman only i. e. to the concerned employee himself in case of his surviving the injury in question and to his dependents in the case of his death (this being so in view of the definition contained in clause (n) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 2) and to nobody else (as would appear from the discussion which follows)"it is needless for me to reproduce the discussion but suffice it to say that in effect the Full Bench held that a legal representative who is not a dependent is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased under the Workmens Compensation Act. In the present case the trial Judge has held that the appellants in both the cases have failed to prove that they were the dependents of the respective deceased. In the present case the trial Judge has held that the appellants in both the cases have failed to prove that they were the dependents of the respective deceased. I have read the depositions of both the appellants and it is difficult to come to a contrary conclusion. In both the cases the appellants have admitted that they are maintaining their family from their own income. There is not an iota of evidence to show that an of the appellants was a dependent on the income of the respective deceased. Mr. R. R. Tripathi who appeared for the appellants could point out nothing from the evidence to show that the trial Judge had reached an erroneous conclusion on this point. Since therefore this issue has been rightly decided by the trial Judge other issues do not require consideration. ( 6 ) IN the result therefore both these appeals fail and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. (JBS) appeals dismissed. .