V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 30/05/1998 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 6877/1999. The grounds for review inter alia are that on the date of passing the impugned order the counsel did not receive the cause list and therefore he could not be present before the Court. It is also stated that even though objections statement to the writ petition was prepared, the same was not filed on account of this reason. ( 2 ) DETAILED statement of objections have been filed praying for dismissal of the Review petition. ( 3 ) A skeleton of facts are necessary to dispose of this review petition and they are:- workmen 's Compensation Act. The commissioner overruled the objection and granted compensation in a sum of Rs. 51,667. 20. Being aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company has come in appeal. ( 4 ) THE short question involved in this appeal revolves round the fact whether the claimant could come within the definition of the term 'dependent' in order to maintain her claim for compensation for the death of the workman concerned. According to the facts narrated in the order of the Commissioner at paragraph 3, it is evident that the claimant is a married lady and her husband is alive, however he is said to be ailing. It has also been stated that the claimant is fully dependent on the deceased workman who is her brother. The claimant is the only legal heir of the deceased workman. It has also been stated that the claimant is fully dependent on the deceased workman who is her brother. The claimant is the only legal heir of the deceased workman. ( 5 ) SECTION 2 (d) of the Workmen's compensation Act defines the term 'dependent' as follows:"'dependent' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely: (i) a widow, a minor legitimate son and unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, (a) widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister of a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a predeceased son, (g) a minor child of a predeceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive. Therefore, persons who are defined as dependants as aforesaid are alone entitled to receive the compensation". ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the material abundantly establishes by the very admission of the claimant that she is married and her husband is alive. In the face of such admission, the claimant would not come within the definition of'dependant' to seek compensation for the death of the workman, and she is not a minor. Though the Commissioner was informed of this objection, he has over-ruled it without assigning any valid reasons. Therefore, in view of the material available, it is to be held that the claimant not being a dependant, is not entitled to seek any compensation, either against the owner or against insurance company. In fact the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the workmen's Compensation Act declares that alter the deposit or compensation, if it is round that there are no dependants to receive the compensation, the same has to be returned to the employer. In fact the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the workmen's Compensation Act declares that alter the deposit or compensation, if it is round that there are no dependants to receive the compensation, the same has to be returned to the employer. Respondent T. Ramachandra (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') was an employee in Visvesvaraiah Iron and Steel limited, Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' ). On the allegation that he has produced forged caste certificate, an enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service on 30/06/1986. The appeal preferred against the order of dismissal also came to be rejected. The employee filed W. P. No. 16144/86 challenging those orders. There were two more charges against the employee relating to chronic absenteeism and the employee had been exonerated from those charges and we are not concerned with the same. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the employee agreed to withdraw the same vide representation dated 29/06/1988 and seeking his reinstatement on the following conditions:"1) I will withdraw the case from the Court in which I have filed for redressal of my grievance unconditionally; 2) I may kindly be reinstated without any back wages and services of my absence may be considered for the purpose of Gratuity; and 3) Any minor punishment which would be imposed after due consideration will be accepted". The Writ Petition was withdrawn and copy was produced. Acting on the basis of the representation, the company passed a modified order on 17/08/1988 reinstating the employee subject to the following:" 1. Without back wages; 2. His absence from 1/07/1986 to the date of reinstatement is treated as leave without pay for the purpose of continuity of his services; 3. He is demoted to V Grade by counting against one of the vacant posts at IAS/ics department with the minimum pay and in the last rank among V Grade employees of ias/ics Department; 4. Enquiry No. 375/87 pending against him instituted for chronic absenteeism would prevail". The penalty of demotion imposed in Item. No. 3 above was subsequently modified to warning vide Memo dated 29/07/1989. Enquiry No. 375/87 pending against him instituted for chronic absenteeism would prevail". The penalty of demotion imposed in Item. No. 3 above was subsequently modified to warning vide Memo dated 29/07/1989. The employee filed W. P. No. 6877/1992 with two prayers, one for fixation of pay as if he is in continuous service and to accord all consequential benefits and arrears and the other prayer for a direction to the company to consider his case for promotion from Grade-V to Grade-IV in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. By an order dated 30/05/1998 this Court passed the following order:"writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of relief of pay fixation in accordance with law as if the petitioner has been in continuous service and to grant him all other consequential benefits and further a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from Scheduled tribe category from Grade-V to Grade-IV or any other higher grade for which he is legally entitled to from the date of his entitlement and to pay all other consequential benefits, after the respondents examining and considering the case of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of this order. "the above order is sought to be reviewed in this revision petition. ( 7 ) IN view of the undertaking given by the employee in his representation seeking reinstatement and in view of the modification of penalty of demotion into warning subsequently, the order dated 30/05/1998 directing to consider fixation of pay as if the employee is in continuous service and to grant all other consequential benefits - is an error apparent on the face of the record. The direction for fixation of pay is correct but the direction to grant all other consequential benefits is a mistake committed by this Court in view of the undertaking giving-up back wages and the absence period should be considered only for the purpose of Gratuity. The direction for fixation of pay is correct but the direction to grant all other consequential benefits is a mistake committed by this Court in view of the undertaking giving-up back wages and the absence period should be considered only for the purpose of Gratuity. The further direction issued to consider the case of the employee for promotion from Grade-V to Grade-IV or any other higher grade does not arise in view of the subsequent order converting the penalty of demotion from Grade-V to grade-IV into warning vide Memo dated 29/07/1989 which has not been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The employee has been restored to his original position by virtue of modification of demotion into warning. Therefore, question of considering his case for promotion from grade-V to Grade-IV does not arise. Thus, there is another error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by this Court on 30/05/1998 in W. P. No. 6871/1992. Hence the same requires modification. ( 8 ) IT is stated that the employee has been subsequently promoted. Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the employee brought to my notice that those promotions were on routine basis without applying the roster system. In view of the reservation policy, and as the employee belongs to Scheduled Tribe he is entitled for promotion in reserved quota. The employee will not be entitled to this benefit for the period of his absence from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement in view of the undertaking given by him to the effect services of my absence may be considered for the purpose of Gratuity. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 30/05/1998 passed in W. P. No. 6877/1992 is modified as under: writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as if he is in continuous service but the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. A further direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to higher grade/s in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe category excluding the period of his absence from duty from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. A further direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to higher grade/s in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe category excluding the period of his absence from duty from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. On such consideration if the petitioner is found entitled for promotion in the reserved category, the same shall be granted and consequential benefits, if any, including seniority and monetary difference, shall be given to him. --- *** --- .