Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) against an award of compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The deceased, Mohd. Shami, was employed as a helper with MSRTC. On 21.12.1995, while on duty, he complained of chest pain and was admitted to the Medical College and Hospital by the employer, but died the same day. The widow and children (respondents) claimed compensation, alleging that the death was due to heavy work. The Commissioner under the Act awarded Rs.1,86,900/-. MSRTC appealed, denying that the death occurred during and in course of employment due to heavy workload. The High Court examined the evidence, including the death certificate showing 'cardio respiratory arrest due to myocardial infarction'. The court noted that the employer did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption that the accident arose out of employment. The court held that there was sufficient evidence of causal connection between the work and death, and the employer failed to discharge the burden of proof. The appeal was dismissed, and the award was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Death During Employment - Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Presumption of Accident Arising Out of Employment - The deceased workman, a helper, complained of chest pain while on duty and died the same day. The Commissioner held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment due to heavy workload. The employer appealed. The High Court upheld the award, noting that the employer failed to rebut the presumption that the accident arose out of employment. The court found sufficient evidence of causal connection between the work and death. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence - Medical Certificate - Cause of Death - The death certificate mentioned 'cardio respiratory arrest due to myocardial infarction' but did not rule out strain from work. The court held that the medical certificate did not exclude the possibility that the death was caused by strain of work. (Para 8)
C) Burden of Proof - Employer's Failure - The employer did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption. The court held that the employer failed to discharge the burden of proving that the death was not due to employment. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the workman due to chest pain while on duty arose out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award of compensation of Rs.1,86,900/- in favor of the respondents.
Law Points
- Presumption of accident arising out of employment
- Burden of proof on employer
- Causal connection between work and death
- Heavy workload as cause of death
- Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act
- 1923
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 106
First Appeal No. 1235 of 2008
Ms. Bhagyashri V. Reddy for appellant; Shri Firoz Khan h/f Shri S.S. Mujumdar for respondent Nos.1 to 5
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Divisional Controller, Division Office, Station Road, Nagpur
Nasim Begum Wd/o Mohd. Shami and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 against an award of compensation for death of a workman.
Remedy Sought
Appellant employer sought to set aside the award of compensation of Rs.1,86,900/- passed by the Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The employer disputed that the death of the workman occurred during and in course of employment due to heavy workload.
Previous Decisions
Commissioner under the Act, First Labour Court, Nagpur, in WCA Case No.95/96 on 11.05.2005 directed appellant to deposit compensation of Rs.1,86,900/-.
Issues
Whether the death of the workman arose out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the death was not due to heavy workload and did not arise out of employment.
Respondents argued that the death was due to strain of heavy work during employment and claimed compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, there is a presumption that an accident arising in the course of employment also arises out of the employment. The employer must rebut this presumption. In this case, the employer failed to examine any witness or provide evidence to rebut the presumption. The medical certificate did not exclude the possibility that the death was caused by strain of work. Therefore, the death was held to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Empoyees Compensation Act, 1923 (“the Act”) by the appellant employer (original non-applicant) questioning the legality of the judgment rendered in WCA Case No.95/96 on 11.05.2005 by Commissioner, under the Act, First Labour Court, Nagpur directing appellant to deposit compensation amount of Rs.1,86,900/-.
The death certificate shows that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to myocardial infarction. The medical certificate does not rule out the possibility that the death was caused by strain of work.
The employer did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the employer failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Procedural History
The respondents filed WCA Case No.95/96 before the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, First Labour Court, Nagpur, which awarded compensation on 11.05.2005. The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The appeal was reserved on 31.03.2022 and pronounced on 18.04.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3, Section 30
