Compensation claims require proof of causal connection between death and employment; absence of evidence linking death to work results in claim dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

S. M. Modak, J.

1. While admitting the appeal on 24.02.2025, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(i) Whether the death of deceased in the present case arose in the course of employment of deceased with the Appellant?

(ii) Whether the evidence on record show that the deceased was found sleeping in the bus and not driving the bus would lead to an inevitable conclusion that the death had not occurred during the course of employment?

(iii) Whether the evidence on record produced by the Appellant establishes that the deceased on the said date was not on duty and thus the accident has not occurred in the course of employment?

2. Accordingly, I have heard learned Advocate Shri Kini for the Appellant-Employer and learned Advocate Shri More for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants/legal representatives of the deceased-Brijlal Yadav. He was a driver by profession. In such an appeal as per first proviso to sub-Section (1) to Section 3 0 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, the Appellant is to be heard only when substantial question of law is involved. In nutshell, the appreciation of evidence done on the basis of the facts cannot be looked into. What can be looked into is perversity of the finding, if any. From the three substantial questions of law, the core question is when the deceased- Brijlal died on 16.12.2021 due to coronary artery disease, whether he was in employment with the Appellant? And Whether the injury can be due to accident?

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Keni made two submissions:-

(i) The deceased was temporary employee. Copy of the muster card produced by claimant themselves show his presence only from 01/12/2021 till 10.12.2021. So admittedly, on 16.12.2021 he has not attended the duty.

(ii) Secondly, when his supervisor received information at 7.30 a.m. on 16.12.2021 that deceased-Brijlal was found in the bus, he was dead. The supervisor could not understand how Brijlal had entered the bus. Accordingly, supervisor informed the Kurla Police Station and further formalities were performed. According to him, there is lack of evidence to show death was due to injury suffered due to accident.

4. Whereas according to learned Advocate Mr. More, every workman is entitled to receive compensation, whether he is permanent, temporary or casual. Signing the muster is not the pre-requisite for showing his presence. Admittedly, the deceased has not signed the muster on 16.12.2021, but it is a fact, which is duly proved, that the Brijlal was found in the bus owned by the Appellant on the date of the incident.

Relevant provision

5. Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act casts an obligation on the employer to pay for compensation. The following are the pre-requisites.

(i) If personal injury is caused to an employee,

(ii) by an accident,

(iii) It has arisen out of employment and during the course of the employment.

There are two exceptions as per proviso. Both are not applicable in this case because there is death of the employee. They are :-

(a) If injury is for maximum period of three days, the employee is not liable.

(b) If the employee is drunk or has willfully disobeyed or willfully not used the safety devices, then the employer is not liable.

However, death is an exception to these contingencies. Still the Claimant has to prove that personal injury is caused due to accident and it was during the course of and arising out of employment. This phrases “arising out of” and “in the course of employment” have got different meaning.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, [(1969) 2 SCC 607] has interpreted the phrase “in the course of employment” as :-

“in the course of work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it”.

Whereas the words “arising out of the employment” are understood to mean that :-

“during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the