This appeal is filed by the appellant-The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s. PVS Beedies Pvt. Ltd., Mangaluru, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.08.2016 passed in ECA.No.10/2014 by MACT-IX and Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada.

2. The claim petition was filed before the tribunal under Rules 8 to 21 of Karnataka Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1966 and Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act,1923 by the wife of deceased Venkappa Moolya seeking compensation on account of death of her husband, Venkappa Moolya. The present appeal is filed under section 30(1) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

3. Respondent Smt. Kalyani, wife of deceased Venkappa Moolya filed a petition before MACT, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada contending that she is the wife of deceased Venkappa Moolya and deceased Venkappa Moolya was entrusted with the work of mixing tobacco for the preparation of beedi and other allied work. Prior to his death, deceased was hale and healthy. On 14.11.2010, deceased suffered heart disease and was treated in Omega Hospital (P) Ltd., as inpatient till 19.11.2011. After surgery, he was discharged and was working in the factory. On 28.02.2011, he tendered resignation and thereafter, he was again admitted to Kshema Hospital, Deralakatte on 18.03.2011 as inpatient and he succumbed to the injuries on 09.04.2011. Hence, the claimant, being the dependent of deceased Venkappa Moolya filed a petition before the tribunal. The tribunal considering the material available on record granted compensation of Rs.3,73,353,80/- to the claimant with 12 @ p.a. from the date of death till realization.

4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. PVS Beedies (P) Ltd., filed this appeal contending that the award passed by the tribunal is contrary to law. The tribunal has considered irrelevant material and inspite of there being dispute as to employee and employer relationship, when the claim petition itself was not maintainable, the tribunal has erred in entertaining the petition filed by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is without jurisdiction. The respondent has not placed any evidence to substantiate that deceased Venkappa Moolya was suffering from occupational disease and there is no connection between his death and employment. The respondent has not examined the doctor to prove the fact that Venkappa Moolya was suffering from occupational disease. The tribunal came to conclusion that the death of Venkappa Moolya was not an accident that had taken place during the course of his employment and his death was due to occupational disease. It is contended that deceased was suffering from lungs problem. Hence, the claimant is not eligible for any compensation. However, the tribunal has awarded compensation which requires interference of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that deceased Venkappa Moolya was entrusted with mixing of tobacco and other allied work. The deceased died on 09.04.2011 due to inhalation of tobacco dust during his service to the appellant Factory. Therefore, the tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly granted compensation to the claimant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and award of the tribunal.

7. As there is no dispute regarding the death of deceased Venkappa Moolya, the only dispute by the appellant-company is that death of deceased was not due to inhalation of tobacco dust. Hence, the only point that arises for Court’s consideration in this appeal is:-

1. Whether the claimant proves that there was employee-employer relationship as on the date of death of deceased Venkappa Moolya?

2. Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal requires interference?

8. After hearing lear