The Order of the Court was as follows :

This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy in W.C. No. 198 of 1997. The opposite party, namely, the Managing Director of the Steel Authority of India, Salem is the appellant before this Court.

The parents of the deceased Vijayakumar contended that Vijayakumar was appointed as a Senior Operator-Trainee on November 1, 1993 in the concern of the opposite party and subsequently he was promoted as Chief Chemist. The deceased was a very hale and healthy person while he was discharging his duties in the respondent's concern. He went to duty as usual on August 2, 1995 - night shift. He died on August 3, 1995 at the age of 25 years while he was working in the laboratory in the Steel Plant during the course of his employment. Police have registered a case and investigation is pending. The complaint given by the respondent/employee was that it was an attempt to commit suicide. The claimants stated that there was no necessity for the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased was covered under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and claimants were entitled to claim the compensation. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 3, 401 per month.

In counter filed by the Appellant, the various claims made in the petition were denied. According to the Appellant, the deceased committed suicide and the death of the deceased was not a natural death. Even after he was admitted in the hospital, the deceased was shouting to others that he should be allowed to die. Inspite of having been given all medical treatment in the hospital, he died. He appears to have consumed Mercuric Chloride. Post-mortem reports also shows that he died due to chemical poisoning. The Sub-Inspector has also made it clear that the claimant had committed suicide.On consideration of the said contentions and evidence, the Deputy Commissioner held that the death had occurred only in the course of discharging the duties by the deceased and, therefore, the appellant was liable to compensate the death as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hence the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant/management contends that a perusal of the Post-mortem report as well as the oral evidence and the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police would clearly establish that the death was purely an unnatural death by suicide. There was an evidence to show that prior to his death, for a period of two months the deceased was in a depressed condition and was taking treatment from a Psychiatric Doctor. It was not a part of the duty of the deceased to consume any chemical and therefore the death cannot be stated to be in the course of his official duties.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation & another v. Francis De Costa and another, 1996 AIR(SC) 678 1997-I-LLJ-34, wherein it has been held that there should be a causal connection between the employment and the accident. He also relied on the, observation that there should be a causal connection between the employment and the accident which should have occurred in the course of the employment. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant the findings of the Deputy Commissioner was liable to be set aside.

However, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would submit the following issues :

(1) The management has not established that the death was only due to suicide or that it was only due to chemical poisoning.

(2) The cause of death is a question of fact and evidence and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.(3) There was a delay in giving FIR to the Police by more than 3 hours, which would suggest that the management was manipulating the records in order to suit their case.

I have c