V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) AN employee died on November 3, 1981, according to the appellant due to an employment injury. Admittedly, he is covered by the benefits of the provisions of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the E. S. I. Act. Invoking Section 52 thereof the appellants claimed the benefits due to them. This application no doubt was made on January 10, 1994 with an application to condone the delay in domg so belatedly. It was the turn of the e. S. I. Corporation to contend that the claim is belated. The ESI Court accepted the defence and therefore rejected the same as belated. The appellant moved the High Court by filing m. F. A. 2735/1994 and this Court condoned the delay and directed the Court to re-entertain the claim and pass appropriate orders on merits of the case. The ESI Court has now held that the death of the worker was not due to any 'employment injury' and as such the legal heirs are not entitled to any benefit.

( 2 ) THE alleged employment injury which is the cause of the death of the employee is described as 'myocardial infarction'. It was in evidence that ever since 1977 the employee is victim 'of this sickness' and admittedly had availed ESI benefits. RW1, the Inspector of the esi has deposed as under: "as per the records maintained by the ESI corporation the death of the employee is described as 'myocardial infarction'. It was in evidence that ever since 1977 the employee is' victim 'of this sickness' and admittedly had availed ESI benefits. RW1, the Inspector of the ESI has deposed as under: and the contention is that therefore this was not an employment injury. Section 52 of the ESI Act as amended reads as follows:"52. Dependents' benefits: (1) If an insured person dies as a result of 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) dependents' 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 dependents specified in sub-clause (i), sub- clause (i-a) and sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6-A) of section 2. "it states that if the death be due to any employment injury sustained as an employee then the dependents are entitled to compensation. What is an employment injury is defined in Section 2 (8) of the ESI Act. It reads as under:"2 (8) "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India. "therefore if the personal injury sustained by the worker was due to an occupation disease arising out of and in the course of employment then it is an employment injury. Meaning of the expression "injury" in this context has been understood as physical harm caused to the body of a person. A myocardial infarction is due to an injury caused to the heart. Admittedly he did not suffer this sickness at any time before January 18, 1977 going by the evidence of RW1. It means he sustained the injury/sickness subsequent to the employment and while he was an employee. The question then would be as to whether he inflicted the sickness/injury upon himself outside the course of employment. Medical science reveal that an injury to the heart which can cause myocardial infarction cannot be sustained due to self infliction. Heart attacks occur when the blood supply to a portion of the heart muscle (myocardium) is severely reduced or stopped. This occurs when one of the arteries that supply blood to the heart muscle (coronary arteries) is blocked by an obstruction. This blockage can be due to atherosclerosis (a build-up of deposits of fat-like substances), a blood clot (coronary thrombosis), or a coronary vessel spasm coupled with a near tota

Click Here to Read the rest of this document