This appeal by the employer is against the award of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased workman,

2. The facts of the case are:

The claimants-respondents had filed a petition, seeking compensation in respect of the death of a driver, who had committed suicide. It was contended, that after finishing his duty on a particular day, the deceased had returned home and it is claimed that he was under extreme mental stress because of alleged harassment at work by his superiors and therefore, it was urged that the death of the workman had a causal connection with his employment, in that, it arose out of his employment. The appellant had resisted the claim admitting that he was a driver. It was vehemently urged that there was no causal connection between the death and the employment. The Lab our Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’ for brevity), having awarded compensation in the face of the contest, the present appeal is filed.

3. Sri S.V. Angadi, appearing for the appellant, would contend that the deceased workman had committed suicide by hanging, at his residence. The alleged accident was not an accident at all, but a premeditated act on the part of the deceased workman and that there was no causal connection between the death and his employment. The allegation that he was under stress, which was brought on by harassment by superiors at his place of employment, was not established. It was a self-serving claim on the part of the claimants. The wage adopted for purposes of calculating the compensation, is also without any basis. Further, the deceased was admittedly, a resident of Maharashtra State. There was no document to indicate that the deceased ever lived in Bijapur District, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, who had entertained a claim and the incident never having taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, there was a failure on the part of the Commissioner to entertain the claim without issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 21(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Therefore, the Commissioner was in error in awarding compensation in the face of these admitted circumstances and would give rise to the following questions of law.-

“(1) Whether the act of suicide committed by the deceased constitutes as having been done during the course of employment?

(2) Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to try the case?

(3) Whether the award is legally sustainable?”

4. Per contra, Sri Harsh Desai, appearing for the claimants- respondents, would submit that there was a causal connection between the death and the employment. To bring a case for compensation within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act, it was not necessary that the workman was actually working at the time of the accident. The positive evidence on the part of the widow of the deceased-workman to state the mental stress undergone by the deceased workman prior to his death on account of harassment by the superiors at his place of work, would establish the causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. He would secondly contend that just as physical stress brought about by virtue of strain at the work engaged by a workman being a cause for injury or death is capable of being attributed as the causal connection arising out of the employment, the mental stress, having brought about the extreme act of suicide on the part of the workman, is no less a case which can be construed as an occupational disease and therefore, would establish the causal connection between the death of the workman and the employment. He would submit that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’ for short) and whether it violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held in the c