JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/owner of the vehicle in question and Mr. Amresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 2 . This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Award dated 04.10.2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Cum- Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Hazaribagh, in W.C. Case No.44 of 2011 whereby the compensation case filed by the appellants has been rejected. 3 . The Trial Court Records has been received. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the claim only on the ground that the deceased Md. Ejaz was said to be minor and erroneous finding has been given that he was not employed with the Truck in question. He submits that the owner has not appeared before the learned court and no evidence has been brought on behalf of the owner, however, the driver was examined as AW-2 and he has supported the case that the deceased was employed as Khalasi in the said vehicle and he was being paid Rs.3500/- per month as salary and Rs.1500/- as Diet Allowance. He by way of referring the evidence of the AW-2 submits that it has been proved that the deceased was employed on the said Truck and erroneously the finding has been given by the learned court and the claim has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the owner of the truck/respondent no.2 submits that before the learned trial court, the owner has not appeared. He submits that the employer- employee relationship has not been proved and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. 6. Mr. Amresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that he was employee on the said truck and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that at the time of accident DW-2 was not working with the owner. He submits that restriction is there of employment of the minor in the transportation. 7. He submits that at the time of accident DW-2 was not working with the owner. He submits that restriction is there of employment of the minor in the transportation. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the two points emerges to be decided in this appeal that is, (i) whether the death of the deceased Md. Ejaz, who was Khalasi took place in course of and out of his employment or not? and (ii) whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation?, if yes, what amount. 8. The F.I.R being Chouparan P.S. Case No.14 of 2010 was registered on 22.02.2010 stating that Md. Ejaz who was the deceased was working as Khalasi in Truck No.JH-02B-0161 and while the articles which was loaded at Sasaram were being carried in the said vehicle due to dash by another vehicle No.NL- 01D-0801 the death of Md. Ejaz has taken. A final form has been submitted on 22.2.2010 disclosing the fact that the accident took place and due to the accident Md. Ejaz has left for his heavenly abode. Thus, it is proved that the accident took while he was in employment as Khalsai on the truck in question. Further, from the trial court records, it transpires that the owner of the vehicle in question has not appeared before the learned court and AW-2 who is Md. Shamsher said to be driver of the vehicle in involved in the accident he has stated in his statement on oath that the deceased Md. Ejaz was Khalasi in truck and they were going to Sasaram and on 22.2.2010 at 4.00 am when the truck reached near Damua Petrol Pump, suddenly a Tailor driven in a very high speed and negligently dashed his truck causing grievous injury to Md. Ejaz, who has succumbed to his injuries and he has also stated that the deceased Khalasi was being paid a sum of Rs.3500/- per month as salary and Rs.1500/- per month as Diet Allowance. In cross-examination, he has also denied the suggestion with regard to non-employment of the deceased on the truck in question. Merely the owner has not appeared and not stated anything before the learned court, the learned court has found that the deceased was not employed on the truck in question. 9. In cross-examination, he has also denied the suggestion with regard to non-employment of the deceased on the truck in question. Merely the owner has not appeared and not stated anything before the learned court, the learned court has found that the deceased was not employed on the truck in question. 9. In view of the above, it is proved that the deceased was employed on the said truck and the accident took place while he was travelling along with the goods from Sasaram on the said truck. In view of that, the employer- employee relationship is established. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance company is accepted that the AW-2 was not driver at the time of accident, it cannot be accepted in view of the fact that AW-2 it is not denied that he was the driver of the said vehicle at one point of time and he has stated that Md. Ejaz was working as Khalasi on the truck in question. 10. The another ground taken by the learned court that the deceased was minor and in view of that he has not been granted compensation. From the Employees’ Compensation Act , 1923, it indicates that that it do not prohibit payment of compensation to a minor. There is no age limit for a person to be employed as an employee under the Employees’ Compensation Act , though Article of Constitution of India, employment of child labour before 14 years in any factory or mine or nay hazardous employment, there are enactments in the form of Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation Act), 1986 where engaging services of children below 14, in any hazardous avocation is an offence. However, considering the fact that the Employees’ Compensation is a beneficial piece of legislation and if a person engaged by an employer, as an employee is a minor and his appointment, though is prohibited by any law in existence, meet with an accident and sustain a disability which can be a total or partial disability, the moot question is whether he should be denied the compensation merely on the ground that the employer had engaged him by contravening the law and he shall be kept out of the benefits which would have been otherwise available to him on account of an accident which he has suffered, which occurred in his work place and out of the course of his employment or whether his family can be denied compensation on his death. 11. The impugned order of the learned court refusing the compensation by the insurance company recording that the deceased was minor appears to be harsh. The insurance company has not been able to prove before the learned Tribunal by way of referring any clause of the policy which do not permit third-party claim if a person is a minor. 12. In view of above, the Employee’s Compensation Act is a piece of social and beneficial legislation enacted in the year 1923 with the abode object of awarding compensation to those who meet with an accident and sustained partial and total disability and those who are dependent on the deceased for their livelihood. The intention of the legislation is very apparent to offer some solace to the persons in distress financially and emotionally and in the state of helplessness and to ensure that the dependents of the deceased some source of their livelihood on account of demise of the bread-earner. 13. In view of above principle, when the evidence is brought on record in the form of F.I.R, final form and the evidence of AW-2, the Court finds that the appellants are entitled for compensation under the said Act. In light of the provisions made in Schedule-IV in light of Section 4 of the said Act with regard to the factors for working-out the sum, the deceased was said to be of 15 years 3 months and 24 days. In light of the provisions made in Schedule-IV in light of Section 4 of the said Act with regard to the factors for working-out the sum, the deceased was said to be of 15 years 3 months and 24 days. As such, his age is being taken as 16 years in view of the factors provided in the Schedule, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,71,350/-[2500 X 228.54] and that will carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 14. The aforesaid amount will be provided by the Insurance Company to the appellants within six weeks. 15. This appeal is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned court.