If a workman dies due to a disease that is accelerated by his employment, the death is considered to be an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and the workman's dependents are entitled to compensation.

R.N.Sahay, J.

1. The wife of the deceased-workman late Dahari Koiri filed a claim application alleging that her husband met with an accident when he was on duty on March 10, 1989. He died on May 26, 1989 by accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The deceased was aged 45 years and was drawing Rs.2,500.00 per month. Immediately after he was injured he was taken for treatment in the C.C.L. Hospital. Register of minor accident reveals that the workman had superficial abrasion round left keen joint. He was prescribed belergon on March 16, 1989 but his pain subsisted. He was given an injection. Doctor diagnosed his case to be dispepsia. He had also breathing problem. Later it was suspected that the deceased was suffering from chronic renal failure on the basis of report dated April 29, 1989 the clinical diagnosis was polycistic kidney and malignant cell. The workman died on May 6, 1989. The cause of death, according to the death certificate was trauma(L) Kidney Polycistic disease of kidney and Renal failure.

2. The case of the appellant as disclosed in the letter dated March 20, 1991 written by Deputy Chief Mining Engineer, Saundadih to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh is quoted below:-

"Kindly refer to your letter No. 721 dated March 6, 1991 on the above subject, in this connection it is stated that Shri Dahari Koiri, Loader, Bangarha Incline of Saunda D East Mine sustained mild injury in the knee of the left leg while he was travelling underground with a loaded basket., a small piece of coal fell down from the basket and injured his knee. The accident took place at 10.05 p.m. on March 10, 1989. Shri Koiri was rendered first aid in the mine and sent to hospital at 10.30 p.m. on the same day. Shri Koiri was discharged from hospital on March 11, 1989 when his knee injury had been fully cured. Since he was complaining pain in the abdomen, he was referred to Gandhi Nagar hospital for further treatment. During the course of treatment he died in Gandhi Nagar hospital on May 26, 1989. He was not paid compensation because the cause of his death was not due to knee injury but his physical element. Photocopy of injury slip is enclosed herewith."

3. The Labour Court as it appears from the reading of the order under appeal, was not prepared to accept the medical report in respect of the deceased-workman as there was divergence of opinion given by two medical officers of the CCL with regard to the cause of the death of the deceased. The Labour Court held the death certificate to be suspicious.

4. The learned Labour Court held that it is clear from the provision of Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act that even if a workman after accident suffered from other ailments like in the instant case, which resulted in his death, his dependents are entitled for compensation. The Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the appellants because no post morterm examination of the deceased was done to find out the exact cause of his death. He further found that the workman died due to negligence in treatment by the doctors of the appellants.

5. Sec. 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act provides that if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in course of his employment his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with Chapter II of the Act." Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 provides that "if a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment or if a workman whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months in any employment specified in part B of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment.... the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident. Admittedly it is not a case under Sub-sec. (2