A. R. BAKSHI, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision in First Appeal No. 1079 of 1960 which was a First Appeal preferred in this Court against the order of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in Workmen Compensation Application No. 87 of 1958 which arose on the following facts. The applicant in that matter was the widow of one Chandulal Hemchand who was an employee of the New Rajpur Mills Company Limited Ahmedabad the present respondent and who died on 12th February 1958 when he was on work in the stamping department of the mills. On that day Chandulal felt giddy and became unconscious and subsequently died in the department. The monthly wages of Chandulal were between Rs. 80/and Rs. 100/and his widow the original applicant as the dependant of the deceased claimed Rs. 3 0 as compensation on account of the death of her deceased husband having occurred as a result of a personal injury received by him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Ahmedabad by his order dated 23rd August 1960 awarded Rs. 3 0 as compensation. The employer the New Rajpur Mills Company Limited preferred First Appeal No. 1079 of 1960 in the High Court which Was decided by Raju J. on 11th February 1963. The appeal by the employer was allowed by the learned Judge against whose decision the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the original applicant.

( 2 ) AS stated above the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation awarded Rs. 3 0 as compensation holding that the workman Chandulal died as a result of a personal injury received by him by accident out of and in the course of his employment. The issues that were framed by the learned Commissioner for determination were: (1) Whether Chandulal Hemchand was a workman ? (2) Whether he died as a result of personal injury received by him by accident arising out of and in the course of this employment ? (3) If so what is the amount of compensation payable to the applicant ? and (4) What order ?the learned Commissioner while holding that the deceased died as a result of personal injury received by him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment observed:what we have to see in this application is whether any causal connection between Chandulals Work and his death is established in this case. One thing is certain that Chandulal was suffering from acute coronary thrombosis. According to opponents doctor Chandulal ought not to have undergone any strain because of his disease. This clearly shows that the strain of work was the immediate exciting cause of Chandulals death. If that is so injury was caused to Chandulal as a result of an accident. The learned single Judge who heard the First Appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner set aside the order of the learned Commissioner granting compensation on certain principles which have been set out in the judgment. The learned Judge was of the view that :if a person who goes to work was already labouring under a disease which is in its origin quite distinct from his work and dies as a result of the disease and the ordinary strain of his ordinary work he cannot be said to have died as a result of accident. According to the learned single Judge if the workman did nothing exceptional on the day he died and if he did the work of the same type as he did every day then it could not be said that death was caused by an accident in the course of his employment. The learned Judge also observed that :i would go further and say that the burden of proof is on the workman to show that something exceptional happened in his work so as to amount to an accident on that day or that the accident happened during his work which was not a part of his daily work. The learned single Judge while holding against the present appellant did not follow the judgment of Bavdekar J. in Appeal No. 2 of 1955 decided by the Bombay High court and the judgm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document