The court emphasized the importance of expert evidence and the need to establish a clear nexus between an occupational disease and the employment to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Madras, dated 14-7-1981 in W.C. No. 131 of 1979. The unsuccessful applicant before the authority below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The case of the appellant was that while he was in service under the second respondent, he had contracted an occupational disease (Silicosis), which according to the applicant is peculiar to that employment as specified in Part ‘C’ of the Schedule III of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923; and that the contracting of the disease is an injury or the accident within the meaning of S. 3 which has arisen out of and in the course of his employment under the second respondent. It was bis further contention that he was working as a Tailor ‘B’ under the second respondent and having regard to the nature of his employment which involved handling of clothes and cotton threads he was directly exposed to the inhalation of cotton dust containing silica. He further claimed that he had contracted the disease due to the inhalation of cotton dust, on account of which he suffered severe bronchitis which led to his admission in the Government Thiruvotteswarar Tuberculosis Hospital, Otteri, Madras on 11-8-1978. He was disc harged on 19-10-1978 and he has filed the claim petition before the authority below and stating that due to the attack of Pulmonary Tuberculosis and severe bronchitis, his health has been greatly affected, thus contributing to his loss of earning capacity and disablement. He claimed that his loss of earning capacity and disablement has been assessed at 40% and that his monthly wages amount to Rs. 480. Therefore, he claimed for the award of compensation of Rs. 12,000.

3. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant and submitted that the appellant was working as a Tailor ‘D’ Grade from 3-5-1963 and he was promoted as Tailor ‘C’ Grade with effect from 8-10-1963; that he was earning a salary of Rs. 700 (including piece work earnings) and that he was not entitled to any compensation, much less the amount claimed by him.

4. At the request of the appellant, he was referred to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital for examination by the Medical Board as to whether the applicant was suffering from any occupational disease and whether it could have been contracted in the course of his employment. The Board was of the opinion that the then existing condition of the appellant was due to Pulmonary Tuberculosis and not as a result of his occupation.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the authority below came to the conclusion that the disease was not due to an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The authority also found that there was no nexus between the employment and the disease of the appellant. The conclusion in this regard was fortified by the expert evidence, made available. Consequently the claim was rejected.

6. In the appeal before me, the counsel for the appellant merely urged the contention that the Medical Board had not been composed of a Radiologist Specialist and so, much weight could not be placed upon the experts opinion. I see no force in this contention. The opinion of the Board which has been duly constituted can be accepted in the absence of any material to the contra. The counsel for the appellant was not able to convince me that in the absence of a Radiologist Specialist in the Board, the opinion rendered by them would not have been properly or validly arrived at or that it would be impossible for the Board to decide the question referred to them. Therefore, I have no other go but to reject the half hearted reiteration of this ground before me.

7. The authority below further foundthat the appellant was still in employmentand his earning capacity has not diminished. Having regard to all these, I see no reason tointerfere with the order of the authority below. As such, the appeal is dismissed. Butin the circum