This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act,1948 against the fair and decreetal order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.66 of 2009 dated 02.06.2011.

2. The case of the petitioners before the Court below is that on 07.12.1982, while their son was working as a spinning Supervisor in Jayajothi Shri Shanmugar Mills Alagar Nagar, Rajapalayam, he met with an accident in Comber Roller Machine and he got injury in his right hand. Their son underwent treatment in the ESI Hospital from 07.12.1982 to 28.02.1983. Thereafter, he was referred to the government hospital, Madurai, wherein, he underwent treatment from 01.03.1983 to 05.03.1983. He was further referred to the Government Hospital, Chennai. While he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Chennai, he died on 12.03.1993, as a result of employment injury. The Court below, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record found that the respondents therein are liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant, who is the first respondent before the Court below, is before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the deceased could not have died due to the employment injury caused on him and the Court below failed to take note of the fact that the deceased died due to chronic renal failure and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of overwhelming evidence available against the appellant herein, the Court below after perusing the entire materials available on record found that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, which need not be suffered at the hands of this Court.

5. The short points to be decided in this appeal are as follows:-

a. Whether the injury caused during the course of the employment will subsequently cause renal failure and cause death?

b. If so, what will be the compensation payable to the claimants?

6. As far as the first question is concerned, it is relevant to quote the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kalavati Sakharam Ingulkar Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd, in which the workman met with an accident and sustained injury on his right loin with contusion on the right of the back near kidney region. The accident admittedly took place in the course of and arising out of the employment. In the said judgment, the High Court of Bombay has held as follows:-

“4. Shri Kochar, the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, invited our attention to the fact that when the workman was discharged from Lonawala Hospital on 8th February 1978, Dr.Ranade had not given him a fitness certificate. Instead he gave a note for the Medical Officer of the employers to the effect that the workman should be referred to Dr.Bharucha of K.E.M. Hospital, Pune for specialised kidney diseases. According to him the fact that the workman was brought to the employer's dispensary in ambulance on 16th February 1978 for sending him to K.E.M. Hospital was very significant. The fact of the matter was that the workman had not fully recovered even for a day to join his duties after the injury was caused to him due to the accident till his death. The Commissioner was, therefore; not at all justified in holding that the death was not even attributable to or accelerated by the injury. If the workman was having huge stones in both the kidneys for years and nothing had happened, he could as well have survived for few more years but for the in jury.

5. We are inclined to accept the claim of the appellant/original applicant. Our reasons for the conclusion are more than one. The cause of death was stated to be renal failure due to huge bilateral staghorn calculie which means that both the kidneys of the workman had failed. In the absence of direct evidence on record it would only mean that even though the right kidney was operated