Judgment :- This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation, Hill Fort Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad, respondent No.1 in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, dated 13.01.2004. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein as petitioners filed E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Court’ for the purpose of convenience) praying for a declaration that the order passed by the appellant herein, the first respondent vide letter No.52.N/19/13/54/93-CB, ID, dated 10.11.2000, as illegal and void, for implementation of the order passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.716 of 1995 at 35:35:30 ratio among the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent therein and also ordering first respondent to recover amount from the second respondent which she had received hundred percent benefits and pay the same to the present respondents 1 and 2 in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioners 1 and 2 in E.I. Case referred to supra, at 50 percent each. The third respondent herein Mrs. S.Madhavi was shown as second respondent in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001. The court below recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, marked Exs.P-1 to P-34 and Exs.R-1 to R-5 and came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioners therein in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001, are entitled to succeed partly and directed the present appellant, the first respondent therein, to pay the dependent benefits to the said petitioners from 27.3.2002 onwards at the rate of 50 percent each and directed the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 3. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the appellant-respondent No.1 would point out that this is a case where on the strength of a memo said to have been filed by the third respondent S.Madhavi, the court recorded certain findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the parents are entitled to the relief. 3. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the appellant-respondent No.1 would point out that this is a case where on the strength of a memo said to have been filed by the third respondent S.Madhavi, the court recorded certain findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the parents are entitled to the relief. The learned counsel would submit that in the light of Section 2 (6A) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) read with Section 52 of the said Act, these parents are not automatically entitled to such benefits and inasmuch as it is a legislative gap unless suitable amendment is introduced in this direction, the order made by the court below as such cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision in Gurdit Singh V. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation ( 1960 (2) LLJ 446 ). 4. Per contra, Sri C.Niranjan Rao, the learned counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that these are unfortunate parents of the deceased and they are sufficiently old. The learned counsel also would contend that this piece of legislation being welfare legislation, the provisions are to be liberally construed and in the absence of wife, who had gone away out of the family after re-marriage, the court below recorded reasons on the strength of the memo filed by the third respondent and came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2, the aged parents, being the dependents are entitled to the benefits. The learned counsel also would submit that on a careful reading of the provisions of the Act in general, the object of the Act and also Section 2 (6A) of the Act and Section 52 of the Act, it is clear that even the old parents would fall under definition of dependents, and hence, the findings recorded by the court below need not be disturbed by this court. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 referred to supra. 7. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Act and it is needless to say that unless there is a substantial question of law the C.M.A. cannot be maintained. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 referred to supra. 7. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Act and it is needless to say that unless there is a substantial question of law the C.M.A. cannot be maintained. The substantial question of law pointed out is “whether the E.I. Court erred in allowing the claim of respondents 1 and 2 in this civil miscellaneous appeal-petitioners, having held that they are not entitled to the dependents benefits since they do not come under the definition of ‘dependent’ under Section 2 (6A)(i) read with Section 52 and Rule 58 of the E.S.I. Act and Rules.” 8. The petitioners filed E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 praying for the relief already referred to supra and it was pleaded by the petitioners that L.K. Venugopal was working in B.D.L. Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, as Junior Technical Assistant in section Milan, died on 23.4.1993 in a motor vehicle accident leaving parents, petitioners 1 and 2 and wife, second respondent. The said deceased L.K.Venugopal was an insured person having insurance No.52-1374175. The second respondent, who is the wife of the deceased, filed a petition O.P.No.728 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, under Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation against the owner of the vehicle and its insurance company and the petitioners also filed O.P.No.647 of 1993 on the file of the same court claiming compensation against the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurance company. During pendency of the above two cases, the petitioners filed O.P.No.716 of 1995 against the second respondent and all concerned under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for declaration regarding certain claims as per the declaration given by the deceased at the time of joining service in B.D.L. and the said court awarded the share among the petitioners 1 and 2 at 35% each and 30% to the second respondent as per the declaration given by the deceased. The petitioners had submitted a letter to the E.S.I. Corporation enclosing the succession certificate claiming benefits to which deceased entitled, but the first respondent-E.S.I. Corporation failed to implement the said order passed by the said civil court and instead of implementing the said order, the first respondent addressed a letter dated 11.10.2000 stating that the petitioners were not entitled to any benefits under the E.S.I. Act and the benefits were payable only to the wife of the deceased and children or otherwise to approach the court for implementation of the order of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 8.01.2001 to the first respondent for implementing the above said order and for payment of the benefits along with the second respondent at 35:35:30 ratio and the first respondent gave a reply taking the previous stand. 9. The appellant herein as first respondent filed written statement with the following averments. The deceased L.K. Venugopal was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act. He met with a road accident causing death which had been admitted as an employment injury and the widow of the deceased who was the natural dependant as defined under Section 2 (6A)(i) of the ESI Act was informed vide letter dated 07.10.1993 to claim the benefit and accordingly she was drawing the benefits as admissible under the ESI Act. It is also further stated that according to Section 52 of the Act read with Rule 58 first of all, the widow of the deceased along with her children and widowed mother alone were entitled to claim the dependant benefits. If the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependants as aforesaid, the dependant benefit shall be paid to other dependants of the deceased. As per the records of the ESI corporation, the deceased got married to one Mrs. Madhavi, the respondent No.2, whose name was got entered in the declaration form by the deceased himself on 28.7.1992 which was subsisting as on the date of his death and accordingly the payment of dependant benefits was to be paid to the widow of the deceased. The award of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, did not contain the dependant benefit payment to which the deceased entitled under the ESI Act. The award of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, did not contain the dependant benefit payment to which the deceased entitled under the ESI Act. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the dependant benefits under the ESI Act. 10. The third respondent herein shown as second respondent in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001 filed written statement averring that the deceased died in an accident while reaching his workshop and she attended his funeral and performed the required ceremonies. The judgment of the III Additional Chief Judge is not relevant or applicable to the present case. The claim is under E.S.I. Act and as such it has to be decided by this Court only as such the Corporation rightly refused the claim made by the petitioners to the E.S.I. Corporation. She is only the person who is dependent of the deceased as provided under E.S.I. Act and she is entitled to the benefits under it. It is also stated that by the time of death of the deceased, the first petitioner was employed as teacher with a salary of Rs.12,000/- and thereafter he has been getting pension of Rs.6,000/- per month after retirement. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under the Act. 11. On the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled. 1. Whether the petitioners i.e., parents of the deceased are entitled to dependant benefits under the ESI Act? 2. Whether the respondent No.2 i.e., wife of the deceased is only dependant-person is entitled for benefits under Section 2(6A) of the ESI Act as contended by the respondent No.2 in her written statement? 3. Whether the respondent No.2 is a declarant as per the declaration dated 28.7.92 given by the deceased to the first respondent-corporation? 4. To what relief? 12. The first petitioner had sworn to an affidavit for the purpose of chief-examination and at that stage when the matter was coming up for cross-examination, the counsel representing the third respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the second respondent in E.I. Case No.32 of 2001, filed a memo on 24.12.2002 along with a letter of the second respondent stating that she got re-married on 27.3.2002, and hence, she was withdrawing her contest from the case. 13. The first petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P-34 were marked. 13. The first petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P-34 were marked. Exs.P-26 is the copy of succession certificate issued by III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O.P.No.716 of 1995. 14. The learned judge recorded reasons in detail taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 as well and Exs.P-1 to P-34 and Exs.R-1 to R-5. But, however, the predominant fact, which weighed with the court, is that the second respondent re-married on 27.3.2002 and she had lost her right to claim and receive the dependant benefits under the Act. 15. This Act, (Act 34 of 1948) is an Act to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. Section 2 of the Act deals with “definitions” and Section 2 (6A) defines ‘dependant’ as hereunder. “”Dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person, namely,-- (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted (daughter;) (ia) a widowed mother;] (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, a legitimate or adopted son or daughter who has attained the age of eighteen years and is infirm; (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) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or adopted or illegitimate if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (c) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (d) a widowed daughter-in-law, (e) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (g) a paternal grand-parent if no parent of the insured person is alive; ‘Family’ is defined under Section 2(11) of the Act as hereunder. “ ‘family’ means all or any of the following relatives of an insured person, namely:- (i) a spouse; (ii) a minor legitimate or adopted child dependant upon the insured person; (iii) a child who is wholly dependant on the earnings of the insured person and who is— (a) receiving education, till he or she attains the age of twenty-one years, (b) an unmarried daughter; (i) a child who is infirm by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury and is wholly dependant on the earnings of the insured person, so long as the infirmity continues; (ii) dependant parents; Section 52 of the Act dealing with ‘dependant’s benefit’ reads as hereunder. “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 (at such rates and for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government) to his dependants specified in (sub-clause (i), sub-clause (I-a) and) a sub-clause (ii) of clause (6-A) of Section 2. (2) In case the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependants as aforesaid, the dependants’ benefit shall be paid to the other dependants of the deceased (at such rates and for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government). The Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 95 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules dealing with ‘dependent’s benefits’ reads as hereunder. The Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 95 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules dealing with ‘dependent’s benefits’ reads as hereunder. Dependent’s benefits:- (1) Dependents benefit shall be paid to the dependents of the insured person who dies as a result of an employment injury, in the following manner:-- (A) In the case of death of the insured person, the dependents, benefits shall be payable to his widow and children as follows:-- (a) to the widow during life 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 the attains the age of eighteen years: Provided that in the case of a legitimate son who is infirm and who is wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, dependents’ benefits shall continue to be paid while the infirmity lasts; (c) to each legitimate or adopted unmarried daughter an amount equivalent to two-fifths of the full rate until she attains the age of eighteen years or until marriage, whichever is earlier; Provided that in the case of legitimate or adopted unmarried daughter who is infirm and is wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, dependents’ benefit shall continue to be paid while the infirmity lasts and she continues to be unmarried; Provided further that if the total of the dependents 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 dependents shall be proportionately reduced, so that the total amount payable to them does not exceed the amount of disablement benefits at the full rate. (A) In case the deceased person does not leave a widow or legitimate or adopted child, dependants’ benefit shall be payable to other dependents as follows:- (a) to a parent or grant-parent, for life, at an amount equivalent to three-tenths of the full rate and 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) to any other— (i) male dependent, until he attains the age of eighteen years, (ii) female dependent, until she attains the age of eighteen years or until marriage, whichever is earlier or if widowed, until she attains eighteen years of age or remarriage, whichever is earlier; at an amount equivalent to two-tenths of the full rate; Provided that if there be more than one dependent under clause (b) the amount payable under this clause shall be equally divided between them. (2) (a) The daily rate of dependant’s benefit shall be forty per cent more than the “standard benefit rate” specified in Rule 54 rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the average daily wages in the contribution period corresponding to the benefit period in which the employment injury occurs, (b) Where an employment injury occurs before the commencement of the first benefit period in respect of a person, the daily rate of dependent’s benefit shall be:-- (i) where a person sustains employment injury after the expiry of the first wage period in the contribution period in which the injury occurs, the rate, forty per cent more than the standard benefit rate rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the wage group in which his average daily wages during that wage period fall; (ii) Where a person sustains employment injury before the expiry of the first wage period in the contribution period in which the injury occurs, the rate, forty per cent more than the standard benefit rate, rounded to the next higher multiple of five paise corresponding to the group in which wages actually earned or which would have been earned had he worked for a full day on the date of accident fall. Explanation:-- The dependent’s benefit rate calculated as aforesaid shall be called the “full rate”. 16. Explanation:-- The dependent’s benefit rate calculated as aforesaid shall be called the “full rate”. 16. Certain submissions were made in relation to the fact that these good old parents also would fall under the expression “dependent” in the light of Section 2 (6A) of the Act. Further submissions were made that this provision may have to be harmoniously construed. 17. As can be seen from the scheme of the Act and different provisions of the Act what is the position of a widow after remarriage, is not clarified. On the strength of a memo said to have been filed by the wife of the deceased, certain findings had been recorded. Further strong reliance was placed on the decision in Gurdit Singh V. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (1 supra). No doubt, an attempt was made to distinguish this decision on certain facts and the subsequent Amendments as well. This court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. 18. On a over all appreciation of all the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that recording certain findings only on the strength of a memo though specific stand was taken in the written statement at the earliest point of time by the third respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal, it cannot be taken that by virtue of that memo she had relinquished all rights. Unless such clear statement is made, the court is not expected to record such findings. 19. Before parting with the matter, on a careful analysis of the provisions referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Legislative provisions are not clear as to what would be the position of the widow of the deceased in the event of her remarriage. May be on remarriage the wife or the widow of the deceased may cease to be a dependent and she may not be a member of the family of the deceased as well. Courts are not expected to legislate while interpreting the statutory provisions. May be that in certain circumstances, to avoid absurdity in interpretation, certain words may be supplied. May be on remarriage the wife or the widow of the deceased may cease to be a dependent and she may not be a member of the family of the deceased as well. Courts are not expected to legislate while interpreting the statutory provisions. May be that in certain circumstances, to avoid absurdity in interpretation, certain words may be supplied. The principles relating to causus omissus being well-known, the Courts cannot try to put a strain over the specific language employed in the statute and hence it would be always desirable on the part of the concerned Legislature to make the Legislative intent clear by rectifying the Legislative gaps, if any, by introducing suitable Amendments. 20. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to record proper findings, if necessary, again after giving opportunity to the third respondent in this regard. 21. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.