JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'Corporation') against the order dated 2.11.1992 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court in Case No 3 E.S.1./85, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the entire dependants' benefit amount after deducting a sum of Rs. 16,994/-, which was already paid to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days. 2. Facts giving rise to the application are that the respondent filed an application before the Employees' State Insurance Court which was numbered as Case No. 4/E.S.1./85, for grant of dependant's benefit as contemplated under section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Insurance Court by its order dated 23.12.1985 held that the respondent is entitled to receive the dependant's benefit and the appellant herein was directed to make payment. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the aforesaid order a sum of Rs. 16,994/- was paid to the respondent herein. According to the respondent the said sum was calculated on the basis of 2/5th entitlement of the respondent. 3. Shri Dubey appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides for payment of dependants' benefit and according to him the said benefit is required to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act. Clause 8 of the First Schedule of the Act inter alia provides that in case of death of the insured person, the dependant's benefit shall be payable to each legitimate or adopted son, an amount equivalent to two-fifths of the full rate, until he attains eighteen years of age. 4. Shri Puntambekar appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent being the sole heir of the insured person and he is entitled for the entire sum and not 2/5 of the 'full rate.' 5. To appreciate the controversy it is relevant to quote section 52 of the Act. Section 52. 4. Shri Puntambekar appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent being the sole heir of the insured person and he is entitled for the entire sum and not 2/5 of the 'full rate.' 5. To appreciate the controversy it is relevant to quote section 52 of the Act. Section 52. Dependant's benefit- (1) If an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act (whether or not he was in receipt of any periodical payment for temporary disablement in respect of the injury) dependants' benefit shall be payable in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to his dependants specified in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of clause (6-A) of section 2. (2) xx xx xx xx A plain reading of this section shows that dependants benefit is required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the first Schedule. (2) xx xx xx xx A plain reading of this section shows that dependants benefit is required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the first Schedule. Paragraph 8 of Schedule I, which is relevant for the purpose is being quoted hereinafter: Paragraph 8: In the case of death of the insured person, the dependant's benefit shall be payable to his widow and children as follows: (a) to the widow during life or until remarriage, an amount equivalent to three- fifths of the full rate and, if there are two or more widows, the amount payable to the widow as aforesaid shall be divided equally between the widows; (b) to each legitimate or adopted son, an amount equivalent to two-fifths of the full rate until he attains eighteen yeas of age: Provided that in the case of a legitimate son who is wholly dependant on the earning of the insured person at the time of his death, dependant's benefit shall continue to be paid while the infirmity lasts; (c) to each legitimate or adopted unmarried daughter who is infirm and is wholly dependant on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, dependant's benefit shall continue to be paid while the infirmity lasts and she continues to be unmarried: Provided that the case of a legitimate or adopted unmarried daughter who is infirm and is wholly dependant on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, dependant's benefit shall continue to be paid while the infirmity lasts and she continues to be unmarried : Provided further that if the total of the dependants' benefits distributed among the widow or widows and legitimate or adopted children of the deceased person as aforesaid exceeds at any time the full rate, the share of each of the dependants shall be proportionately reduced, so that the total amount payable to them does not exceed the amount of disablement benefit at the full rate." 6. According to Paragraph 8 of Schedule I of the Act each son is entitled to only 'two-fifths of the full rate' as dependants' benefit. Dependents' benefit as calculated under Paragraph 6 of Schedule I of the Act has been termed as 'full rate'. According to Paragraph 8 of Schedule I of the Act each son is entitled to only 'two-fifths of the full rate' as dependants' benefit. Dependents' benefit as calculated under Paragraph 6 of Schedule I of the Act has been termed as 'full rate'. In view of specific legal provision that dependants' benefit shall be 'an amount equivalent to 2/5 of the full rate', I had no option than to hold that the dependants' benefit cannot exceed 2/5 of the full rate. The second proviso to paragraph 8 though contemplates that in case of dependants' benefits distributed among the widow or widows, and legitimate or adopted children of the deceased person as aforesaid exceed at any time the full rate, the share of each of the dependants shall be proportionately reduced, so that the total amount payable to them does not exceed the amount of disablement at the full rate. However, in a case in which the amount paid to a dependant is less than the 'full rate' nothing has been provided under the Act which can reasonably be construed to indicate that the dependant is entitled for the dependants' benefit at the full rate. 7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge that as the insured has no other dependant, the respondent shall be entitled to dependants' benefit at the' full rate' is not correct. 8. For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 2.11.1992 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court in Case No. 4/3 E.S.I./85.