( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed questioning the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal in WC No. 127 of 1992 dated 6-3-1995, in which he awarded a sum of Rs. 82,545. 00 to the wife of the deceased.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: Deceased G. Megha Raju was working as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation, who received personal injuries during the course of his employment resulting in his death. The deceased who was on duty in bus No. AAZ 6567 on his return journey on enroute Arenda to Karimnagar on 3-1-1993, due to bad road conditions, developed chest pain and he was thereafter admitted into a Government Hospital at Peddapally by detaining the bus service at Peddapally and he expired soon after his admission into the hospital for treatment on 3-1-1993. It is further stated that the death was occurred while on duty during the course of the employment in the appellant-corporation. He was not paid any compensation. His wife moved the authority under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 for payment of compensation which was resisted by the appellant Corporation. It was admitted that while the bus was on enroute from Arenda to Karimnagar on 3-1-1993, the deceased got chest pain and he was admitted into a Government Hospital at Peddapally where he died. But the allegation that he received personal injury due to the accident arising under the course of his employment was denied and he got chest paid due to his personal ill-health and not because of any accident caused to the bus conductor. It is also stated that the deceased will not come under the definition of Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen s Compensation Act since post held by him is not shown in any category of Schedule II of the Workmen s Compensation Act and therefore the appellant-Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The Commissioner, however, held that the deceased conductor was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen s Compensation Act and he further held that the deceased-conductor developed the chest pain while he was on duty of strain leading to his hospitalisation. He accordingly held that the workman/deceased-conductor died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner therefore ordered a compensation of Rs. 82,380. 00 along with a sum of Rs. 165. 00totalling to Rs. 82,545. 00 payable by the appellant-Corporation and the same was directed to be deposited with 6% interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Corporation. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:" (A)WHETHER the death of an employee during the duty hours, though not due to any accident or other occupational hazard would entitle the legal representatives for a compensation under the Act. (b) Whether the deceased conductor can be construed as a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen s Compensation Act, as the post held by the deceased is not shown in Schedule-II and the case is not covered by Section 2 (1) (n) of the WC Act. "

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased-conductor though died while he was conducting the bus but the death was not due to any accident and hence, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation; and in any event the conductor is not a workman 35 per the Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 (for short the Act ). Hence, it is argued, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award any compensation. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that admittedly the deceased-conductor was conducting the bus and due to strain of work accelerated to chest pain, and once casual connection between the employment and death is established, it can be held that the conductor died durin