M.P. State Electricity Board and Another vs Smt. Leelabai

N.K. Mody, J.—The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:--

Whether the learned Court below was justified in holding that the deceased expired out of and in the course of employment?

Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No. 248/04 WCF whereby claim petition filed by the respondent was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,46,200/- was awarded in a death case, present appeal has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the respondent alleging that Sukhlal was the husband of respondent who was working as line inspector. It was alleged that on 3.11.1999 Sukhlal was on patrolling duty right from 6:30 A.M. It was alleged that because of extraneous work Sukhlal died. It was alleged that since the death occurred during course of employment, therefore, compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the appellants on various grounds including on the ground that the appellants are not responsible for payment of compensation as the death is nothing to do with the job. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,200/-, against which present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the claimant to establish that the death of deceased Sukhlal occurred due to stress and strain in discharge of the duly. It is submitted that since there is no evidence on record in this regard, therefore, learned Court below committed error in holding the appellants liable for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another, wherein deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease and the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off as such there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties, Hon''ble Apex Court held that death cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in course of his employment, hence employer cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation, however, Hon''ble Apex Court directed that compensation already paid, should not be recovered. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, wherein deceased suffered massive heart attack, Hon''ble Apex Court held that circumstances must exist to establish that death was caused by reason of failure of heart because of stress and strain of work. It was also held that unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain. Commissioner will not have jurisdiction to grant damages. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

Learned Counsel for respondent submits that after the appreciation of evidence learned Court below allowed the petition filed by the respondent, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case respondent has examined Leelabai AW/1, Rajesh AW/2 and Dilip AW/3, While the appellants have examined Ramesh Chandra Nigam NAW/1, Shivnarayan NAW/2, Bherulal NAW/3 and Umakant Kulshrestha NAW/4. Undisputedly the deceased was on patrolling duly. He was on his job right from 6:30 A.M. and that incident occurred some where at 3:30 P.M. It has come in the statement of co-employees that he was found died when he was resting his bones in a shade of tree. The date of incident is 3.11.1999. Ex. D/1 is the application for leave w.e.f. 25.8.1999 to 30.8.1999 with a certificate Ex. D/2 which shows that because of heart attack deceased was admitted in hospital from 25.8.1999 to 27.8.1999 and the Doctor advised for bed rest for a period of three weeks. Thus the deceased was on leave up to 15.9.1999 and the death occurred within a period of six weeks. Undisputedly the accident occurred when the deceased was performing his duties and asking other employees to proceed further as he was not feeling well. This itself shows that because of stress and strain the death occurred. Thus the fact of the case are quite distinguishable. In view of this substantial question of law is answered against the appellants holding that Sukhlal died because of stress and strain in discharging The patrolling duty. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.