( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the original opponent in a workmen compensation application before the learned Judge Labour Court and Exofficio Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Rajkot district Rajkot being W. C. (F) Application No. 9 of 1972 allowing the said application of the applicants who are the heirs of the deceased Assistant Traffic Inspector attached to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation who got a heart attack while on duty on 26th May 1970 and who later succumbed to the same by awarding a sum of Rs. 10 0 as compensation payable under the Workmens Compensation Act (The Act ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) MR. V. V. Patel the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that in the instant case there is no material on record to justify a conclusion that there was a causal connection between the death on the deceased and his duties and that the accident happened out of the specifics employment with the opponent Corporation. He has referred me to several authorities on the subject. They are Kamlabai v. Divisional Superintendent Central Railway Nagpur (1971) 1 L. L. J. 603; Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. v. Ibrahim Mahomed Issak (1970) 1 L. L. J. 16; Bai Shakri v. New Manekchowk Mills Company Ltd. 1 L. L. J. 585 (II G. L. R. 23) and Messrs. Ramlal Jawahirlal v. Smt. Leela Bai and Others (1972) 2 L. L. J. 598. These decisions are based on consideration of the provisions contained in sec. 3 of the Act the material part whereof so far it concerns the question under consideration in the instant case reads thus:-"3 (I) If personal injury is caused to a workman 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"; thus in order that an employer is held liable to pay compensation the claimant will have to establish that the deceased (in case of fatal accident) was a workman within the meaning of the Act. It will also have to be established that the personal injury was caused to him by the accident. It will further have to be established that the accident arose out of and during the course of the employment of the workman and on all these facts being established the employer will be held liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions contained in chapter II read with sec. 3 of the Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in Mackinnons ease (supra)"to come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words in the course of the employment mean in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it. The words arising out of 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 duty owing to the master it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. In other words there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression arising out of employment is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature its conditions its obligations and its incidents. But by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises out of employment. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment the claim for compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act". THIS court also in Bai Shakris case (supra) set out the principles which emerge from decided cases in this connection and they are (1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulti