EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pipe repairing in the Railways is arduous. While engaged in that work on June 5, 1971, in the Southern Railway one Kumaran got exhausted and sat down with head resting on hands. He was immediately removed to hospital where be was admitted for cerebral haemorrhage. He succumbed to it two days after, while under treatment there. His widow, who is the respondent here, was awarded Rs. 7,000/- as compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. This appeal from that is by the Executive Engineer of the Railways under whom Kumaran worked.

(2.) The fact that Kumaran was working in the Railways on the relevant date is denied by the appellant. The deposition of the Inspector of Works who was examined as O.W. 1 shows that there is a separate muster roll for Kumaran. That would have shown whether he was actually engaged in the work that day. That was not produced. A.W. 2 is a coworker and A.W. 3 a shop keeper in the neighbourhood. Their evidence, relied upon by the Commissioner, and that rightly, shows that actually Kumaran was engaged in the work of repairing pipes in the Railways on June 5, 1971. It is clear that the accident occurred when he was on duty and so in the course of employment.

(3.) The only other matter in dispute is as to whether the accident arose out of the employment. Kamlabai Chintaman v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway AIR 1971 Bom. 200, a decision of the Bombay High Court, and the prior decisions referred to therein were relied upon by Mr. M. C. Cherian, appearing for the appellant, in support of the position he took. The principles applicable to cases of the instant type are by now well established. Compensation can be awarded only if the accident arose in the course of and out of the employment of the workman and those conditions refer to the time when the accident happened and the causal connection between the employment and the death. If the workman actually got ill in the course of and on account of the employment and he died as a result of it then there is no scope for a controversy at all. The employer is bound to give compensation. He is also bound to give compensation in cases where the workman had an illness already but the employment furnished a contributory cause to his death or if the employment caused aggravation of the illness and accelerated his death. If it was as ft natural result of a disease which the workman already had that he died and his employment did not furnish a contributory cause to his death or if the employment had really nothing to do with the aggravation of his disease and acceleration of his death then it cannot be said that there was a causal connection between his employment and subsequent death. The decisions cited by Mr. Cherian do not lay down anything inconsistent with these principles.