Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. As against the said order, the appellant herein has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1332 of 1996 in which an order was passed by the learned single Judge, on 8.2.2002.

8. The learned single Judge had come to the conclusion that the workman had died of heart attack and there was a pre-existing heart condition, which was aggravated by the strain and stress of the deceased, which resulted in his death and held that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was right in holding that the workman had died of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Learned single Judge had placed reliance on several decisions which are noticed hereunder.

"5.The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the death occurred in the premises of the appellants. There is no causal connection between the death and the employment and, therefore, it could not be said that the death was arising out of the employment which is one of the ingredients of S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On a perusal of the evidence, I find that except the evidence of the deceased workman that he was required to travel long distance for performing the work of meter reading, there is no evidence of any medical expert to demonstrate that such work was so strenuous that it could have resulted in the heart attack. .... However, there is nothing on record to show that the heart attack occurred due to the nature of work performed by the workman concerned." (Emphasis Supplied)

13.It is apparent from the aforesaid decision that the High Court was not convinced that the heart attack occurred due to the nature of the work performed by the workman concerned. In the present case, however, the Commissioner for workman Compensation and the learned Single Judge have come to the conclusion that because of the strenuous nature of the work, the workman suffered heart attack. This essentially is a finding of fact based on some material on record and it cannot be said that such finding is based on surmises and conjunctures or there is absolutely no evidence in support of such conclusion. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act can be considered only if there is a substantial question of law. Since, in the present case, the conclusion is based on some materials on record and the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and the learned Single Judge have concurrently come to the factual conclusion that the death was on account of accident arising out of and in the course of employment, we are not inclined to take any different view of the matter.

14.This is not to suggest that in every case where an employee dies in heart attack while on duty, it must be taken that the death is on account of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Obviously the Court is required to find out on the basis of materials on record whether there is any causal connection between the nature of work and the disease suffered by the workman. Obviously any conclusion is to be arrived on the basis of evidence on record and it cannot be laid down as an universal principle that every case of death of employee during working hours on account of heart attack, that, the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.