1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 22nd May 1998 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, 11th Labour Court, Mumbai, awarding compensation of Rs.1,73,295/- to the respondent.

2. The appellant is a shipping company. The respondent was employed by the appellant and was posted on the appellant’s ship “CV Raman” as a Helmsman from 26th March 1993. In July 1993, the respondent suffered from fever and was sent for medical treatment. In the medical check up, it was discovered that the respondent was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus. As per the rules of the appellant company, a workman suffering from Diabetes Mellitus is not fit for duty on a ship. Accordingly, the appellant company discharged the respondent from the service on the ground that he was medically unfit. The respondent thereafter by his letter dated 18th October 1993 requested the appellant to pay him compensation. On failure of the appellant to pay the compensation, the respondent filed a claim application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”). After considering of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that Diabetes Mellitus was an employment injury arising out of and in the course of the employment with the appellant and was therefore entitled to a compensation. He accordingly directed the appellant to pay to the respondent the compensation of Rs.1,73,295. That order is impugned in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence that the respondent suffered any injury in the course of and arising out of the employment. Contracting of the disease Diabetes Mellitus cannot be said to be an employment injury. Diabetes can be caused due to many factors, such as genetic, obesity, life style, unhealthy diet, etc. The cause of the respondent suffering from diabetes in the present case was not attributable to the employment with the appellant and hence the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the diabetes may not have been contracted by the appellant on account of the employment, he was entitled to compensation by reason of the National Maritime Board (India) Agreement.

5. The questions of law that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that contracting of diabetes was an injury arising out of and in the course of employment with the appellant?

(ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the basis of National Maritime Board (India) Agreement?

6. So far as the first point is concerned, Mr. Naidu for the respondent fairly conceded that Diabetes Mellitus per se cannot be said to have been caused because of the employment. He admitted that there was no evidence in the present case that the appellant suffered Diabetes Mellitus on account of the employment with the appellant. There was no cause and effect relationship between the employment and the disease. Apart from the concession which is fairly made by Mr. Naidu, this Court in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Madhavan, 2005 III CLR 491, has held that diabetes can be caused to due various factors such as genetic, hypertension, stress, etc. It was necessary for the respondent-workman to establish before the Commissioner on evidence that the work which was performed by him led to the disease. Unless the employment was the cause of which Diabetes Mellitus was the effect, the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation on account of suffering of Diabetes Mellitus while he was in the employment.

7. Schedule III of the Act gives a list of occupational diseases. “Diabetes Mellitus” is not one of the diseases mentioned in the list. Even if it is assumed that it is open to a workman to establish that a particular disease, w