( 1 ) THIS appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act (Central Act 34 of 1948), has come up before us as a result of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court directing the appeal to be placed before a Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE appellant, Shyama Devi, laid a claim under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the assertion that she was the widow of one Badri prasad Srivas-tava, who was an insured employee in Messrs. Atherton West and Co. Ltd. , Kanpur, and that Badri Prasad Srivastava died as a result of personal injury caused by accident on the 10th September, 1954, shortly after midday, whilst he was serving as a coolie employed in messrs. Atherton West and Co. Ltd. ; According to the claim set forward by the appellant, she was also the guardian of Vidyawati, who was the only child left by the deceased.

( 3 ) THE claim was contested. It was admitted that Badri Prasad Srivastava was an insured employee in Messrs. Atherton West and Co. Ltd. , Kanpur, but it was asserted that Badri Prasad had not sustained employment injury, as defined in the Act. The case of the respondent was that badri Prasad died of heart failure, and not as a result of any employment injury, and that, therefore, his dependants were not entitled to lay any claim. The learned Judge, who constituted the Employees Insurance Court, framed three issues, as follows : " (1) Whether Badri Prasad Srivastava died on the 10th September 1954, on account of employment injury? (2) If the death of Badri Prasad Srivastava was due to employment injury, who are the dependants entitled to get dependants benefits? (3) If the death of Sri Badri Prasad Srivastava was due to employment injury and his dependants are entitled to dependants benefits, what should be the amount of the same?"

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the evidence before him, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the death of Badri Prasad Srivastava was not due to an employment injury, as defined under the act. The learned Judge did not give any finding on issues Nos. 2 and 3, and dismissed the claim by his order dated the 24th March, 1956. It is against this order that the present appeal was filed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that the view taken by the learned Judge that the death of Badri Prasad was not due to an employment injury, as defined under the Act, is incorrect. In order to appreciate the controversy certain facts may now be set forward. The evidence of the witnesses produced by the appellant was that, on the relevant day, Badri Prasad was doing the work of carrying stacks of sheets of cotton cloth from a place inside the factory premises where those stacks were arranged, to another place, within those very premises, at a distance of about 70 yards from the former place, and that the weight of each stack of sheets of cotton cloth, which were not tied together, was approximately 30 seers and that, at the relevant time only three persons were looking after the work of four persons, as one person had gone to offer prayers. The evidence further was that, whilst performing the aforesaid duties, when Badri prasad was carrying a bundle, he somehow fell down with the result that the bundle came over him, whereafter a number of bundles, which were placed on a table, about that very place, also fell down over Badri Prasad. Several persons, including the witnesses, thereupon rushed to the place where the bundles had fallen on the chest and face of Badri Prasad, and removed the bundles from over Badri Prasad, and then found that Badri Prasad was already dead, whereafter the dead body was taken to the Supervisor who informed the doctor. The learned Judges assessment of the evidence given by the witnesses of the appellant was that it showed that Badri Prasad, while carrying a bundle of sheets of cotton cloth, fell down, and that bundle came over him along with some others that were placed on a ta