Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act requires establishing a direct causal link between employment and the injury or death, with the claimant bearing the burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 21.05.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Bharuch in Workmen’s Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 4 of 2007 whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the legal heir of deceased Ashokbhai Pannalal Jain - original claimant and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,99,340/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident and also directed to pay 50% penalty i.e. Rs.1,49,670/-.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that one Ashokbhai Pannalal Jain was working as assistant foreman (auto) in Ankleshwar Project with the appellant. That the said Ashokbhai waited for but on 10.10.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. along with other co-workers at Ramvatika Bus Stand for going to the plant, where he was suddenly fainted and then he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Bharuch. That the doctor of Civil Hospital, Bharuch has declared the said workman as died. The legal heir of the said Ashokbhai has preferred the aforesaid application before the learned Commissioner, which came to be allowed and awarded compensation.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that one Ashokbhai Pannalal Jain was working as assistant foreman (auto) in Ankleshwar Project with the appellant. He has submitted that while the said Ashokbhai coming to the work place, he waited for bus on 10.10.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. along with other co-workers at Ramvatika Bus Stand, where he was fainted and then he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Bharuch. He has submitted that the doctor of Civil Hospital, Bharuch has declared said Ashokbhai as died and, thereafter, the postmortem was performed of the said workman and he was died because of cardio respiratory failure due to myocardia infection. He has submitted that the respondent – original applicant has failed to establish that there was any nexus with the death as it was shown in the application that due to heavy work pressure the deceased died. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel has emphasized upon the provision of Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as under:-

“3. Employer's liability for compensation.—

(1) If personal injury is caused to [an employee] 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:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days;

(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to -

(i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of [employee].

(2) If [an employee] employed in any employment specified in