JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Indore, has filed this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the order dated November 7, 1985, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Labour Court), Ujjain, in Case No. 43/1982-ESI thereby directing the appellant to pay dependant benefit from November 4, 1981, to November 20, 1982, to respondent No. 1 (Dayabhai) as a legal representative of the dependant, Kashibai, widowed mother of the deceased employee, Ishwarlal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on September 9, 1986, on the under noted substantial question of law : "Whether the legal heirs of a dependant as defined under Section 2(6A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act are entitled to claim the benefit available to the dependant ?" 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The employee, Ishwarlal, sustained injury on his right hand in the course of employment. He was treated in insurance hospital but eventually succumbed to death on November 4, 1981. Respondent No. 1 as a legal representative of Kashibai, widowed mother of the employee, Ishwarlal, and appellant No. 2 as alleged adopted daughter of the deceased, Ishwarlal, filed the aforesaid case to obtain dependant benefit. Ishwarlal was insured with the appellant and insurance number was 338243. The appellant contested the case. The Court passed the order, as noted above. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal which secured admission on the above noted substantial question of law. I have heard Shri N. C. Behal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri P. C. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondent No. 2. Section 2(6-A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, defines the term "dependant" as including a widowed mother. 3. The employee died on November 4, 1981, when the widowed mother, Kashibai, was alive. She died later on November 20, 1982. Indisputably, Kashibai is the legal heir entitled to get benefit. The only contention raised before me is that Dayabhai, son of the deceased, Kashibai, and the brother of the deceased employee, Ishwarlal, is not the person covered under Section 2(6-A) of the aforesaid Act and as such no amount is claimable by respondent No. 1. Indisputably, Kashibai is the legal heir entitled to get benefit. The only contention raised before me is that Dayabhai, son of the deceased, Kashibai, and the brother of the deceased employee, Ishwarlal, is not the person covered under Section 2(6-A) of the aforesaid Act and as such no amount is claimable by respondent No. 1. This argument ignores the conclusion contained in the order under challenge to the effect that only Kashibai, the widowed mother of the deceased employee, is entitled to get the benefit for the period from November 4, 1981 (death of the employee), to November 20, 1982 (death of the dependant), as indicated in the Act. As she died on November 20, 1982, the liability is required to be discharged by making payment to her legal representative, respondent No. 1. No claim is allowed to respondent No. 2. 4. Faced with this position, counsel for the appellant submitted that claim is required to be submitted in terms of regulation 80 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, and a claim form, as indicated in Form No. 18, is required to be submitted for the dependant's benefit. 5. In view of the provisions contained in Section 2(6-A), it is held that the widowed mother is the proper person as a dependant for the benefit and on her death respondent No. 1 has the right to receive the amount due to the dependant. It is noticed that the aforesaid Kashibai was paralytic and had depended on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 also incurred the expenses in the obsequies of Kashibai. 6. Considering this submission and taking into account the legal position, I find that the widowed mother was entitled and as such the substantial question of law, as formulated, is answered against the appellant. However, respondent No. 1 may take steps to obtain the benefit as directed after submission of the claim in Form No. 18 in conformity with the direction issued by the aforesaid Court. This appeal is thus dismissed but with no order as to costs. The record shall be returned.