A Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court, and his decision is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. An order passed in appeal by the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 3, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22A, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 15 - COURT - COMMISSIONER - JUDGMENT - APPEAL - FACTUAL FINDING - CAUSAL CONNECTION - EMPLOYMENT AND ILLNESS - COMPENSATION. Whether a Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Whether an order passed in appeal by the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Whether the question of causal connection between the course of employment and illness is a question of fact or law.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased, employed as a seacunny on a ship, fell ill while working and was taken to a hospital. He was diagnosed with tuberculous bronchopneumonia and pericardial effusion. His condition deteriorated, and he died in the hospital. The widow and minor son of the deceased filed an application before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation for the injury caused to the deceased by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner found that the deceased died of injuries due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to the applicants. On appeal, the High Court set aside the Commissioner's order, holding that there was not enough material to establish a causal connection between the course of employment and the illness which ultimately resulted in the deceased's death.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. An order passed in appeal by the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The question of causal connection between the course of employment and illness is a question of fact and does not raise any question of law.
Issues: 1. Whether a Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? 2. Whether an order passed in appeal by the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? 3. Whether the question of causal connection between the course of employment and illness is a question of fact or law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. An order passed in appeal by the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. The question of causal connection between the course of employment and illness is a question of fact and does not raise any question of law.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court Judge, and restored the order passed by the Commissioner to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to the applicants and costs of the application. The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellants.

JUDGMENT - Nathwani, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by original applicants against the order of Mr. Justice Chitale dated 28th February, 1966, setting aside the order of the Commissioner awarding Rs. 4,000 as compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

2. The facts of the case are as follows:--The original applicant No. 1 is the widow of one Oosman Baba, who was employed as a seacunny on a ship named S. S. "Caltex London" belonging to M/s. British Industries Navigation Company Ltd. of which the original opponents are the Agents. On December 15, 1960, Oosman Baba signed the articles and boarded the said ship "Caltex London". While working on the said ship as a seacunny Oosman Baba fell ill on January 20, 1961, when the said ship was at Bahrain and was immediately taken to Awali Hospital, Bahrin. On admission he complained of chest pain for the previous week with cough and expectoration. He was treated for his illness in the hospital. On or about 31st January, 1961, he showed signs of tuberculous bronchopenumonis with suggestion of pericardial effusion. Subsequently his condition slowly deteriorated and, ultimately, on 28th February, 1961 he died in the said hospital. The deceased left him surviving as his heirs his widow and a minor son being respectively the original first and second applicants.

3. On May 24, 1961, the applicants filed application No. 336/B-42 of 1961 in the Court of the 2nd Additional Commissioner at Bombay claiming Rs. 4,500 as compensation in respect of the injury caused to the deceased by accident arising out of and in the course of his said employment on S. S. Caltex London.

4. Before the learned Commissioner the parties led evidence to show the nature of work done by the deceased as a seacunny on the said ship. From the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Abbas Gulam Hussain and Martin Pinto, it was shown that the deceased had to work for 12 hours as seacunny, that he had to work for four hours at an interval of four hours during night and day, that during his work the deceased had to stand throughout, that in the wheelroorn where the deceased worked there used to be smell of oil and at the time of loading of oil the fumes of smell became suffocating. The appellants case was that the duties of the deceased as seacunny were hard, particularly as he had to stand during day and night for 12 hours in the course of his duties.

5. On the material placed before him the learned Commissioner made his finding that the deceased died of injuries due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the opposite party and observed as follows :--

".....In the facts of this particular case, it is more than plain that the deceased workman who was suffering from the two ailments namely, pulmonary tuberculosis and heart trouble had a sudden attack while on duty and as such the employment can reasonably be said to be contributory cause or that it accelerated his death. There is no evidence at all to show that on 20th January 1961, while he had an attack he was not on duty and in any case, therefore, it can also easily be said that the death of the deceased was not only due to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment." xx xx x The Commissioner, in making the above finding, followed the ratio of the decision of this Court in the leading case of Laxmibai v. Bombay Port Trust, 55 Bom LR 924.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Commissioner the opposite party filed an appeal to this Court. The said appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Chitale on 28th February 1964 when the Counsel on behalf of the applicants was absent and the learned Judge decided the appeal ex parte against the applicants. However, later at the instance of applicants Counsel and with the consent of the Counsel for the Opposite party, the learned Judge reheard the appeal on 2nd March, 1966. The learned Judge held that the remark in the medical report which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document