JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The deceased workman Shatrughna was employed as a driver on tractor No. CPS 9253, owned by respondent No. 1 (the employer) and insured against accident by the insurance Company (respondent No. 2). In the course of his employment, the tractor turned in the field and the workman Shatrughna died on July 4, 1981 having been crushed under the tractor. It is not in dispute that he was employed on fixed wages of Rs. 140/- per month. 2. The appellants, who are parents of the deceased, approached the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act'), claiming compensation for the death of the workman. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, by the impugned order dated January 31, 1983 rejected the claim filed by the parents, holding that since the deceased workman was never paid any salary by the employer during the whole period of his employment and he having received support from his parents, the parents cannot claim to be falling within the definition of 'dependents' defined under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b), of the Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in this appeal placed heavy reliance on the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Union of India v. Santi Bala Devi and others, 1988(1) ACJ 274, particularly the interpretation placed on the above defintiion clause in a claim of a similar nature as reproduced below:- "10. The third contention of Mr. N. Bhat-tacherjee is that since the father of the deceased workman was a Grade IV employee working in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, he cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased workman. Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act defines the work 'dependent'. Sub-clause (iii) of the said clause runs as follows: (iii) If wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) a parent other than a widow mother. (c) xxx xxx xxx Reading the said Clause (d), it appears that a parent, if partly dependent on the earnings of a workman at the time of his death, shall be treated as a dependent for the purpose of the Act. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) a parent other than a widow mother. (c) xxx xxx xxx Reading the said Clause (d), it appears that a parent, if partly dependent on the earnings of a workman at the time of his death, shall be treated as a dependent for the purpose of the Act. In the Indian Society joint families system is prevalent and normally a parent also shares the earnings of his sons though he may have some income and this is true, more particularly in case of persons having low income. The father of the deceased workman was only a Grade IV employee. I can take judicial notice of the fact that Grade IV employees are not paid to have a decent living. So, I can safely come to the finding that the father of the deceased workman was partly dependent on the income of his son. I, therefore, hold that the present petition by the father of the deceased workman is maintainable." 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on the other hand supported the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, rejecting the claim and laid much emphasis on expression dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. The contention advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company is that on the facts found by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, the workman had no earnings from the employment and the parents were not dependent on him at the time of his death. They cannot, therefore, claim any compensation under the Act. Strong reliance has been placed on a decision of Madras High Court, in the case of Proprietor, St. Joseph's Automobile and Mechanical Works v. Maria Soosai Pillai (AIR 1963 Madrs 206). It is argued on the basis of the above that dependency is to be determined with reference to the date of death of the workman and the fact that at a future date the father might have to depend upon the son is not a relevant consideration. Assistance was also sought to be taken from the following decisions :- (i) B.M. Habeebullah Marciar v. Periaswami and Others 1977 A.C.J. 517. (ii) Imammiya Sadrumiya Malek and Ors. v. Mahmadhusen Nabibhai Shaikh 1985 A.C.J. 674. (iii) Kunnesingh Bhanwarlal v. Navia (1965-II-LLJ-515)(Rajasthan). (iv) Sarguja Raigarh Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Harshwar Prasad 1964 M.P.L.J. S.N. 176. 5. Assistance was also sought to be taken from the following decisions :- (i) B.M. Habeebullah Marciar v. Periaswami and Others 1977 A.C.J. 517. (ii) Imammiya Sadrumiya Malek and Ors. v. Mahmadhusen Nabibhai Shaikh 1985 A.C.J. 674. (iii) Kunnesingh Bhanwarlal v. Navia (1965-II-LLJ-515)(Rajasthan). (iv) Sarguja Raigarh Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Harshwar Prasad 1964 M.P.L.J. S.N. 176. 5. The question to be decided is whether the appellants are covered by the definition in Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2(1) of the Act. To be more precise, the question is whether under the said definition clause they can be said to be parents wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. 6. The only available evidence on the point is of father Ramji, appellant No. 1, examined before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation as P.W.1. His statement is that the deceased was employed on fixed wages of Rs. 140/- per month. He worked with respondent No. 1 for about four-five months, but no salary was paid to him. till the date of his death. He admits that the deceased lived jointly with his parents and other members of the family including his brothers and was being supported by the members of the family with the income, from some extent, from agricultural lands and their individual earnings as labourers on daily wages. In the present state of evidence whether the parents can be held to be dependents of the deceased? in joint families in India, consisting of father and sons if all the claimants are earning members normally the income and expenses are shared. In such situations, each earning member provides support and is also dependent on the other. In Indian joint families, there is thus sharing of income and responsibilities. Inter-dependence and mutual co-operation alone makes living in joint families possible. Here the deceased workman was employed on fixed wages, but his wages were in arrears and were not paid by the employer till the date of his death. In Indian joint families, there is thus sharing of income and responsibilities. Inter-dependence and mutual co-operation alone makes living in joint families possible. Here the deceased workman was employed on fixed wages, but his wages were in arrears and were not paid by the employer till the date of his death. Will it be reasonable to hold that had he received the wages and contributed them to the needs of the family and the members joint with him, the other members can be said to be partly dependent on him, but since for want of payment of his wages admittedly due to him, he could not make any contribution to the family and other members, the other members can claim no right of getting support from him? 7. The relevant clause defining the word 'dependent' keeping in view the object of the Act and the facts as found here, cannot be assigned a restricted meaning to include in the said expression only such parents who have actually received benefit fully or partly from the earnings of the deceased and to exclude such parents who in natural and normal course would have received such benefit from the earnings of the deceased, but for some act or omission on cause attributable to the employer are deprived of such benefits from the deceased workman. 8. In my considered opinion to fulfil the avowed object of the Act, which is a beneficial legislation, the parents who did not get any advantage from the earnings of deceased but were entitled to receive the same in normal circumstances, are included in the relevant definition clause of the word 'dependent'. Non-payment of wages due to the deceased deprived the parents of the benefit of the earnings of the deceased who was living jointly with them during his life time. His death deprived them of his monetary support for all times in future. Such parents should be held intended to be included in the definition of dependent under the sub-clause mentioned above. Any other interpretation would work great injustice on parents who were deprived by the employer of the benefit of the earnings of the deceased workman, who was not paid his dues towards wages in his life time, in comparison to such parents who actually received such benefit. 9. The last question is, how much amount of compensation can be awarded for the death of the deceased. 9. The last question is, how much amount of compensation can be awarded for the death of the deceased. The deceased was employed on fixed wages of Rs. 140/- per month. He died on July 4, 1981 before amendment was introduced to Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, providing for a minimum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in case of death. The amendment to Section 4 was introduced with effect from July 1, 1984. On the relevant date when the death occurred of the workman, as per Schedule IV under Workmen's Compensation (M.P.) Rules, 1962, for the salary between Rs. 100/- and 150/-the amount of compensation provided in the event of death was Rs. 7,000/-. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellants are entitled to the amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupeess Seven Thousand only). It will carry further interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of this order till its realisation. The amount shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents. The appellants shall also get costs of the proceedings before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and in this Court. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- (Rupeess five hundred), if certified.