( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation in Application No. 22 of 1980 directing the appellant-Municipality to pay an amount of Rs. 21 600 as compensation to the dependents of deceased workman.

( 2 ) THE workman was employed as a Driver and he was in service of the Municipality since the year 1951. on 5/02/1980 when he was on duty he received heart attack at about 2 p. m. and he was taken to hospital by a co-worker named Jadavbhai. The record of the Civil Hospital has been produced in the case and the staff of the Civil Hospital has also been examined in the case. This evidence shows that the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital where he was given only preliminary treatment. Further treatment could not be given because cardiac machine was not available. As per the case of the dependents of the workman from the Civil Hospital the deceased was straight taken to Sevashram Hospital while as per the case of the appellant- Municipality the deceased was first taken to his house and from his house he was taken to Sevashram Hospital. However the learned Commissioner found that the deceased was taken to Sevashram Hospital straight from Civil Hospital. Be that as it may. This point is not very much material for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the case. As per the evidence and as found by the learned Commissioner it is clear that the workman died on account of myocardial infraction (cardiac shock ). In above view of the matter the dependents of the deceased-workman filed application before Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and claimed compensation. The learned Commissioner after recording evidence and after hearing the parties allowed the application and directed the appellant-Municipality to pay an amount of Rs. 21 600 to the dependents of the deceased workman. It is against the aforesaid judgment and award the Municipality has preferred this appeal. No one appears on behalf of the respondents though served.

( 3 ) IN this appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellant Municipality that the nature of the duty to be performed by the deceased workman was not such that it can be the cause or contributing factor for aggravation of the disease Therefore it cannot be said that the workman died due to accident which arose out of and during the course of employment. The contention cannot be accepted for the single reason that as found by the learned commissioner for Workman Compensation the workman was working as Driver and was driving the tractor attached with a trailer in which dirt and filth was being collected from different parts of the town and was being dumped in a particular place in the town. The deceased workman was required to do this work from morning 7 a. m. up to about 3 p. m. every day. It is proved in the case that on the date of enchant the workman was on duty from 7 a. m. onwards. Simply because the work did not require continuous driving for all the duty hours it cannot be said that the driving of a tractor would not be a contributory or aggravating cause for the cardiac failure or for myocardial infraction. Academically it may be said that heart-attack may also be sudden one. But ordinarily it has got to be inferred that strain of work would contribute and/or aggravate the heart-disease. to this connection reference may be made to the decision of this High Court in the case of Amubibi v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (reported in 18 GLR 681) rendered by D. A. Desai J. (as he then was ). In that case also the workman had died due to heart failure. He was working in a textile mill. Therein it is observed as follows:"leaving said any technical consideration common course of human conduct or commonsense knowledge tells us that coronary insufficiency is generally the consequence of strain extra work fatigue. In the case of workman working on a loom in an article atmosphere of humidity formerly called sweated labour he is shown to