The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the circumstances under which the employer is liable for employees compensation under section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. Bisht, J.

1. This is an appeal under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (“the Act”) by the appellant employer (original non-applicant) questioning the legality of the judgment rendered in WCA Case No. 95/96 on 11-5-2005 by Commissioner, under the Act, First Labour Court, Nagpur directing appellant to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 1,86,900/-.

2. The applicant No. 1 is widow of late Shri Mohd. Shami S/o Ismail Miyan who was working with the non-applicant as helper and was attached to the Divisional Workshop at Nagpur. The applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are daughters of applicant No. 1.

3. According to applicants deceased workman was on duty on 21-12-1995 and at about 4.30 PM complained of pain in the chest. He was admitted in the Medical College and Hospital by the non-applicant but he died on the same day. According to applicants the death was due to heavy work which the deceased workman was doing and thus, the accident occurred during and in course of employment and therefore, she claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,86,900/- by way of compensation.

4. Non-applicant-MSRTC resisted the application by denying that the death of the deceased workman occurred during and in course of his employment because of the heavy work load. However, the non applicant does not dispute that the deceased workman was a helper. It denied that deceased was doing heavy work and died due to strain and work load during the course of his employment.

5. After hearing both the parties, the Commissioner directed non-applicant to pay the legal heirs of deceased workman compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,86,900/-. Therefore, the present appeal.

6. Ms Bhagyashri V. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that although the deceased workman was working as a labour but his death did not take place because of the heavy work load during the course of employment. According to learned counsel, the applicant did not examine any witness to substantiate that because of heavy work load the death of deceased workman occurred. Learned counsel invited my attention to xerox copy of the post-mortem report, which is not disputed by other side, wherein the cause of death is given as “coronary in sufficiency leading to myocardial infarction associated with pulmonary tuberculosis on right side” (natural cause of death). According to learned counsel, the Commissioner failed to appreciate the evidence properly and wrongly awarded compensation which in the aforesaid circumstances is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also placed reliance in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellor and Another, AIR 2006 SC 2830 and Puppala Naga Malleswara Kumar and Ors. vs. M. Rambabu and Another, 2012 (2) T.A.C. 657 (AP).

7. Shri Firoz Khan, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions by contending that as far as nature of duty of deceased workman is concerned, the same is not disputed. It is also not disputed that during the course of employment the deceased suffered chest pain followed by heart attack leading to his death. The death was essentially during and in the course of employment. The Commissioner was absolutely justified in awarding the compensation which needs no interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed argued learned counsel. Learned counsel also placed reliance in Zubeda Bano and Others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/MH/0237/1989 and Shantabai and Others vs. Chairman, Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. MANU/MH/1713/2019.

8. Section 3 of the Act carves out the circumstances under which the employer is liable for employees compensation. Section 3(1) reads thus:

“Employer’s liability for compensation (1) If personal injury is caused to a employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employ