Dependency benefits under social security legislation require proof of a causal nexus between employment and the injury. A heart-related death during working hours is not an automatic 'employment injury' without evidence demonstrating that work-related strain was the proximate cause of the cardiac event.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the ESI Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Application No.78 of 2005, the appellant – ESI Corporation has preferred this first appeal u/s 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short “the Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 Deceased Ramanbhai Shivabhai Patel was covered under the insurance being No.37/4060376 and he was working as Fitter mechanic in Bajaj Processors. On 6.9.2004, deceased Ramanbhai, while was working in second shift with hale and hearty condition, suddenly at around 4:45 in late afternoon, complained of chest and abdomen pain. Thereafter, he slept in the corner of the working department. Since, his condition was worsened, he was shifted to the Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead at around 6:30 p.m.

2.2 In the hospital, postmortem of the deceased was carried out, whereby cause of death recorded in the postmortem was cardiac respiratory arrest due to coronary heart disease.

2.3 The claimant initially preferred an application before the ESI Corporation vide letter dated 2.2.2005, which was rejected vide letter dated 2.4.2005 by the ESI Corporation.

2.4 Being aggrieved, the claimant preferred ESI Application No.78 of 2005 before the ESI Court seeking compensation, which was allowed.

2.5 Being aggrieved, the ESI Corporation has preferred present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sachin Vasavada for the appellant Corporation and learned advocate Ms. Asha Gupta for the respondent claimant.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada for the appellant referred to the judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.5069 of 2023 and submitted that this Court has believed that injury of heart attack or heart disease being reason of death, is not an employment injury and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation. He would further submit that the facts of the present are identical to the facts of the case mentioned in First Appeal No.5069 of 2023 and thus, applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, the ESI Court has committed serious error in granting dependency benefit to the claimant.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada would further submit that the substantial question involved in the matter is as to whether heart attack being simplicitor cause of death can be considered as employment injury within section 2(8) of the Act? He would further submit that in the present case, the claimant has not produced any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was suffering from physical stress and trauma and which has developed heart disease. He would further submit that the heart disease is not unknown in this country, may it remain undetected, but its development is not unknown in this country. He would further submit that the deceased while was in duty, suffered heart attack and expired and prior to it, at no point of time, he had any complaint of physical stress and trauma or angina pain being result of physical and mental stress and trauma being root cause of heart disease. In absence of specific evidence thereof, granting of compensation in favour of the claimant by the ESI Court is an erroneous approach.

3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submits that the findings of cause of death cannot be considered as injury arose out of the employment and therefore, the learned Court has committed manifest error in granting dependency benefit.

3.4 Upon above submissions, he prays the