The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment, the liberal interpretation of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, to protect the weaker section of workers, and the consideration of the nature of work, service conditions, and stress arising out of employment to determine the casual connection.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for appellant at the stage of admission. None for respondents despite service.

2. Appellant/employer has called in question legality and correctness of the judgment and order rendered by the Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) in Case No. WCA NO. 9/2015 holding respondents’ entitlement for compensation under the Act of 1923.

3. The respondents filed application before the Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 for grant of compensation of Rs. 6,52,280/-. After recording evidence, the Commissioner concluded that death of Narsayya Sirsilla (workman) was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and accordingly granted compensation with interest. Appellant/employer filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner.

4. While issuing notice, in view of the first proviso added to Section 30 of the Act of 1923, this Court has framed following substantial questions of law :-

“(i) Whether the Commissioner in the present case was justified in allowing the claim application and whether it could be said that the death of the victim in the present case could be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment in the absence of pleadings to that effect?

(ii) Whether the respondent No. 2 could be said to be entitled to compensation when admitted at the time when claim application was moved, he was 19 years of age?”

5. The background facts in nutshell are as follows :-

Shri Narsayya (workman) husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was working as cable man in the employment of Western Coal Fields Limited (for short ‘WCL’). Respondents/claimants filed an application before the Commissioner claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,52,280/- in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1923. Respondents stated in the claim petition that the death of deceased workman was due to accidental injury occurred while discharging his duty as cable man. It is claimants case that on 29.05.2015 as usual, deceased workman joined his duty at 08.00 a.m. During course of duty, he felled down from building and died on the spot. Deceased workman was 47 years of age and was earning salary to the tune of Rs. 50,495/- per month. According to claimants, the said accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. No sooner deceased workman fell down in accident, he was shifted to hospital, however declared dead before admission. Postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased workman as well as the accident was reported to the Police who carried investigation in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the death of Narsayya occurred during the course of employment, the employer was liable to pay compensation amount in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1923. The claimants had issued legal notice to the employer demanding compensation but the latter failed. Therefore, claim was raised before the Commissioner.

6. The employer – WCL has not disputed that deceased workman was in their employment and was doing work as cable man. It is also not in dispute that on fateful day deceased workman attended duty at 08.00 a.m. However, employer has specifically denied that the death of Narsayya arose out of and in the course of his employment. It is specifically denied that deceased workman fell down from building resulting into accidental death. It is the stand of employer that on 29.05.2015 Narsayya attended his duty at 08.00 a.m. Around 03.30 p.m., he came to the office and told that he is tired and slept on the floor. Immediately ambulance was called by which he was sent to the hospital but was declared dead. According to the employer, there is no connection of death of Narsayya with his employment but it was a case of natural death. With such stand, employer denied the liability.

7. On the basis of rival pleading, the Commissioner has framed issues and re