9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment and out of employment. 2. Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment and out of employment. The deceased was working as a Cleaner in Vehicle No. MH 09A 9727 and developed chest pain while performing his duties, leading to his death. The autopsy revealed the cause of death as Cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic Aneurysm, with no external injuries. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner did not analyze the evidence on record and proceeded on the basis that the deceased being a workman, it was obligatory on the part of the first Respondent to maintain registers under the Minimum Wages Act. The Commissioner discussed the legal issue regarding the meaning of 'accidents and injury,' noting that internal accidents such as strain causing rupture or heart failure coincide with injury leading to death. However, the High Court found no material evidence to show that the deceased was suffering from a heart ailment or that he was put through a sudden stressful condition in the course of his duties, which brought on a cardiac arrest. Issue 2: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The High Court allowed the appeal u/s 30 of the Act, stating that the findings of the Workmen's Compensation were perverse and inconsistent with the material on record. The High Court referenced decisions from the Supreme Court, including Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa and Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co v. Bai Valu Raja, to conclude that the death of the workman was not during the course of his employment. The Supreme Court noted that the term 'accidental injury' is not defined under the Act, and for compensation to be payable, the injury must be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court emphasized that there must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. The onus is on the applicant to show that the work and resulting strain contributed to or aggravated the injury. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to show that the heart attack was caused while doing any job, and the driver of the vehicle, who was the deceased's brother, did not testify. The Court concluded that the Commissioner did not establish that the job involved any stress or strain and that the death had a causal connection with the employment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Commissioner did not go into the jurisdictional facts or arrive at any finding based on legal evidence regarding the causal connection between the employment and the death. The appeal was dismissed, but it was directed that any amount already paid to the Appellant need not be refunded.
|
