PUTTATHAYAMMA Vs. E S I CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN employee died on November 3, 1981, according to the appellant due to an employment injury. Admittedly, he is covered by the benefits of the provisions of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the E. S. I. Act. Invoking Section 52 thereof the appellants claimed the benefits due to them. This application no doubt was made on January 10, 1994 with an application to condone the delay in domg so belatedly. It was the turn of the e. S. I. Corporation to contend that the claim is belated. The ESI Court accepted the defence and therefore rejected the same as belated. The appellant moved the High Court by filing m. F. A. 2735/1994 and this Court condoned the delay and directed the Court to re-entertain the claim and pass appropriate orders on merits of the case. The ESI Court has now held that the death of the worker was not due to any 'employment injury' and as such the legal heirs are not entitled to any benefit.

(2.) THE alleged employment injury which is the cause of the death of the employee is described as 'myocardial infarction'. It was in evidence that ever since 1977 the employee is victim 'of this sickness' and admittedly had availed ESI benefits. RW1, the Inspector of the esi has deposed as under: "as per the records maintained by the ESI corporation the death of the employee is described as 'myocardial infarction'. It was in evidence that ever since 1977 the employee is' victim 'of this sickness' and admittedly had availed ESI benefits. RW1, the Inspector of the ESI has deposed as under: and the contention is that therefore this was not an employment injury. Section 52 of the ESI Act as amended reads as follows:

(3.) THE above in brief is what is myocardial infarction. The cause it is described to be the work and there is nothing that the individual consciously contributes. Except besides work, the nature of the food he consumes is also important. Going by the emoluments one cannot assume that he is consuming very rich food. The nature of the work, the work place and inability to take proper care at the work place would have caused the ailment which has taken the toll. In such circumstances to say that the death is not due to employment injury may not be justified.