The court clarified liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act requires a direct causal link between employment activities and the resulting injuries or diseases.

1. This appeal arises out of proceedings started by the widow of a deceased seacunny for compensation on account of death caused to her husband in the course of his employment with the opposite party namely Messrs. Mackinon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd., who hereafter will be referred to as the Company.

2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass, and may be stated briefly as follows: The deceased, Eusoof Karbelkar, was employed as a seacunny on the ship S. S. Arbistan. Full course of the voyage of the ship is not on record. We, however, know that the ship had anchored at Antwerp and, later on, at London. Eusoof was on service on the said ship as a seacunny. The duties of a seacunny have been mentioned by witness, Harman Govind, who was examined for the appellants. According to him one seacunny has to steer wheel and the other seacunny has to attend as a stand - by. Each has to work 4 hours alternately. The total work is of 12 hours for each. The man who has to stand by has to do polishing, scrapping, painting, stitching of tarpaulin, service to duty officer and preparing hot water for tea. When the ship is at the shore he has to clean the gangway, look after the ropes and tighten them up if they are loose. The seacunny does watch - duty of the gangway also. Two persons alternately work continuously for 4 hours. After 4 hours, they get 4 hours' rest. For the 4 hours of duty, they have to stand. In this way they work after every 4 hours and work 12 hours a day. On 6-1-1962, Eusoof complained of pain in the left shoulder when the ship was lying anchored at Antwerp. He was kept off duty for that day. On 7-1-1962, he worked for some time. He then complained of shortness of breath. He was, therefore, again placed off duty for that day. The ship reached the shore of London on 10-1-1962, and on that day be was taken to the shore hospital for observation. He was paid off on that day. After he was admitted to the hospital, he complained of breathlessness. An electro cardiogram plate was taken which showed the presence of a posterior infaract. His condition remained the same till 19-3-1962 when he was discharged for being repatriated. He was being repatriated to India by ship s. s. Tangistan. While on board the ship, he breathed his last on the night between 25-3-1962 and 26-3-1962. The post - mortem examination revealed that the left ventricle was hypetrophied, the coronary arteries showed irregular thickening and the cause of death was described as coronary thrombosis. It is the case, therefore, for the applicant who is the widow of the deceased that her husband died of injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,500 by way of compensation.

3. The Company contended that there was no causal connection between the employment of the deceased and the injury as a result of which he died. The Commissioner negatived the plea put forward on behalf of the Company and ordered them to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,500 plus a sum of Rs. 150 by way of costs. It is against that judgment that the Company has come in appeal.

4. Mr. Atul Setalvad on behalf of the Company has raised an interesting question of law. He pointed out that S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act falls into three parts. Sub-section (1) deals with a case of personal injury caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The sub-section provides that, in such a case, the employer will be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter. Sub-section (2) relates to what have