JUDGMENT 1. 1. Petitioners Bhanwar Lai and Smt. Bhuri Bai are the parents of deceased Bheru Gujar, who was an insured person under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as The Act.') According to the petitioners talc Bheru died of an employment injury, received during the course of his employment, on 19.7.1985. The petitioners further alleged that late Bheru had married Samhhari just twelve months prior to his death. After the death of Bheru, his widow Samhhari remarried with in fifteen days and went away to her new home. 2. The petitioners applied for dependents benefit under the Act which was denied to them by the E.S.I. Corporation on the ground that at the time of insured person's death his wife Samhhari, who fell in the first category of dependents was alive and therefore the petitioners who were in the Second category of dependents were not entitled to dependent's benefit under the Act, 3. The petitioners contend that the ESI Corporation is not paying any dependents benefit to the widow of late Bheru on the ground that she has remarried and are also not paying the petitioners on the ground that they are not eligible for the benefit in the presence of the widow. According to the petitioners this act of the ESI Corporation was extremely arbitrary especially when other remedies including that under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been barred under Section 51 of the Act. The result is that the ESl Corporation has deemed itself absolved of all the responsibility to pay dependents benefit in the case. The petitioners have also prayed for declaring the provisions of the Act, which permit such a situation, to he declared ultra vires the Constitution of India being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. 4. The relevant provisions of the Act as, they stood at the time of the death of Shri Bheru in 1985 were as under: "Section 2(6A): "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person. lamely: (i) a widow, minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) ................... (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death: (a) a parent other than a widowed mother; (b) ...................... lamely: (i) a widow, minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) ................... (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death: (a) a parent other than a widowed mother; (b) ...................... " Section 52, Dependents 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 dependent's benefit shall he payable in accordance with the provision of the First Schedule to his dependents specified in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6A) of Section 2. (2) In case the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependents as aforesaid, the dependent's benefit shall he paid to the other dependents of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule. Relevant provisions of the First Schedule (since repealed) were as follows: " 8. In the case of death of the insured person the dependents benefit shall he payable to his widow and children as follows; (a) to the widow during life or until remarriage an amount equivalent to three-fifth of the full rate and if there are two or more widows, the amount payable to the widows as aforesaid shall be divided equally between the widows; (h) ......................... (c) ....................... 9. In case the deceased person does not leave a widow or legitimate or adopted child dependents benefit shall be payable to the other dependents as follows:- (a) to a parent of grand parent for life at an amount equivalent to two-tenth of the full rate provided that if there are two or more parents or grand parents, the amount payable to the parents or grand parents as aforesaid shall be equally divided between them. (b) ......................." 5. The difficulty has arisen in the case because of the provision of Section 52 of the which provides for payment of dependents benefit to dependents falling in clause (i) and (ii) of Section 2(6A) of the Act only in the first place. It is only when the insured person dies leaving behind no heir under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2 (6A) of the Act that dependents under clause (iii) there of can claim dependents benefit. It is only when the insured person dies leaving behind no heir under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2 (6A) of the Act that dependents under clause (iii) there of can claim dependents benefit. The same is provided in the First Schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions have to be given a liberal interpretation to advance the object of the Act. They can not be construed narrowly to defeat the very purpose of the Act to provide social security to the dependents of deceased employee meeting with premature death due to employment injury. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that the provisions disentitling the parents from the benefit of the Act be declared ultra vires. 6. It is settled law that provisions of an enactment are to be construed in a manner as to advance its purpose and especially benevolent legislation concerning social security and welfare have to be liberally construed to make them effective tools of social change. The ESI Act is one such legislation which provides social security and cover to industrial workmen and their families and dependents. There is no doubt that narrow and hyper- technical construction can not be put on the language of the Act which may result in depriving the dependents of the deceased insured person benefit under the Act. In the present case, the parents of the deceased insured person are being denied the dependents' benefit on the ground that the widow of the deceased was alive and she alone under the Act was entitled to the benefit. In fact even the widow is not being and would not be paid because she has remarried and was entitled for the benefit only up to her remarriage. Thus, out of all these technical niceties the ESI Corporation, the expected benefactor, has emerged as the ultimate beneficiary and the parents who should have got the dependents benefit are left high and dry. 7. It is, therefore, to be seen whether without doing too much of violence to the language of the provisions a liberal interpretation can be put on them entitling the petitioners to the dependents benefit under the circumstances of the case. 7. It is, therefore, to be seen whether without doing too much of violence to the language of the provisions a liberal interpretation can be put on them entitling the petitioners to the dependents benefit under the circumstances of the case. It is also settled law that declaration of a law to be ultra vires should be avoided if the provisions can be read down to interpret them so as to make them conform to the Constitution. In our opinion, the words "In case the insured person dies without leaving behind the dependents as aforesaid" appearing at the beginning of sub-section (2) of Section 52 and the words" In case the deceased person does not leave a widow" appearing at the beginning of para 9 of the first Schedule will have to be interpreted liberally to provide succour to the parents such as the petitioners. The legislation certainly did not intend to create a situation where dependents benefit would not be payable to any one in a situation such as which obtains in the case before us. The reasonable construction which can be put 'on the language is that so long as the widow does not remarry she would be entitled to dependents' benefit to the exclusion of the parents and as soon as she remarries, the parents would become entitled to it. The language of the provisions has to be interpreted to mean that dependents specified. in clause (i) and (ii) of section 2(6A) would be entitled to dependents specified in clause (iii) initially, but whenever a situation arises in which the dependents specified in clause (i) and (ii) cease to be entitled to dependents benefit because of death or remarriage, the dependents specified in clause (iii) of Section 2(6A) of the Act would art getting the benefit we feel such an interpretation would advance the purpose of the Act and bring the provisions in consonance with the Constitution of India.The petition is, therefore, allowed, The decision of the ESI Corporation disentitling the petitioners of the dependents benefit is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the dependents' benefit to the petitioners from the date of remarriage of the widow of the deceased insured person after granting her proper opportunity of hearing on the question of remarriage as the petitioners. have not impleaded her in this case. The respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the dependents' benefit to the petitioners from the date of remarriage of the widow of the deceased insured person after granting her proper opportunity of hearing on the question of remarriage as the petitioners. have not impleaded her in this case. There shall however, be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******