ORDER : This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in W.C. Case No. 23/2004, whereby the claim for compensation of the applicant-appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel has assailed the impugned order and submitted that; it would be evident from Annexure-I,' that in similar circumstances the legal heir/representative of the khalasi of the said truck had filed W.C. Case No. 13/2004 which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the Court has rejected the claim of the appellant holding that no evidence has been brought on record that the claimant's husband, i.e. the alleged driver of the truck has died. The Court below has erred in rejecting the claim by holding that owner of the vehicle had lodged Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 215/1996 under Section 406, lPC and till date the driver has not been apprehended. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the claimant's husband has been missing for more than seven years and the case of the appellant is in pari materia with that of W.C. No. 13/2004 whereby the legal heirs of the missing khalasi have been granted compensation. On this limited ground and question, the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment/order is fit to be set aside and the appellant be granted the claimed compensation. 4. In course of arguments, learned counsel submitted that a case has been instituted by the claimant with the police at, Tekari alleging that her husband is traceless. Learned counsel prays that liberty be given to the appellant to adduce necessary evidence for proving the death of her husband. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, has submitted that the, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is argued that the Court below has recorded its satisfaction that the appellant/claimant has not adduced any cogent evidence regarding the death of her husband. Since the truck was traceless, the owner instituted a police case against the driver (husband) of the truck. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the driver, i.e. the husband of the appellant. That due to non-appearance of the driver in the case, he was declared an absconder by the trial Court. Since the truck was traceless, the owner instituted a police case against the driver (husband) of the truck. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the driver, i.e. the husband of the appellant. That due to non-appearance of the driver in the case, he was declared an absconder by the trial Court. It is argued that this aspect has been properly considered by the Court below and the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Heard. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Court below has examined and discussed the material evidence on record and rightly held that the deceased was employed as a driver of the truck by the owner. 7. Indisputably the driver along with the truck went missing and the truck owner lodged a case under Section 406, IPC being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 215/1996. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the driver, i.e., the appellant/claimant's husband. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, compensation is to be paid by the employer in case of death, injury, permanent disablement, etc., if the conditions enumerated in the provisions of the Act are fulfilled. The principle enshrined is that such death or injury arises out of or in course of employment. 8. The burden lies on the claimant, to establish that death had occurred in course of or arisen out of such employment. It is evidenced from the materials on record that no document or evidence has been adduced by the appellant that her husband has died. On the contrary, the police has submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant/claimant's husband who was the driver of the truck. The Court below has declared the accused/driver as an absconder. The claimant has not adduced any documentary evidence to substantiate the plea of civil death of her husband. She could have filed a declaratory suit regarding the civil death of her husband. Therefore, in absence of any evidence regarding the death of her husband, she is not entitled to the compensation under the Act. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that in similar circumstances the Court below had granted compensation to the dependants of the cleaner (khalasi) of the said truck hence, the appellant's case being similarly situated, she too was entitled to the claimed compensation. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that in similar circumstances the Court below had granted compensation to the dependants of the cleaner (khalasi) of the said truck hence, the appellant's case being similarly situated, she too was entitled to the claimed compensation. In this context, it is pertinent to state that it is well settled that if an illegality is committed in one case then it cannot be a binding precedent in another case on the same facts. 10. In this connection, it is relevant to reiterate the settled legal position that, illegality cannot be a ground for claiming equality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 15 SCC 715 has observed in para 16 as follows : "16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8) "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted, some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible." 11. The settled legal position is that misconstruction of a provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in other case on the plea of doctrine of equality. The argument of the learned counsel is negated and answered accordingly. 12. Considering the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficent legislation and the appellant has prayed that she may be given liberty to adduce evidence in the Court below to establish the factum of death of her husband, therefore in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the Court below and the appellant is at liberty to lead evidence in the Court below regarding the death of her husband. The Court below shall give reasonable opportunity to the appellant for adducing the necessary evidence in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction, the matter is remitted to the Court below and the impugned order is hereby, set aside. The appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of