LEELA DEVI Vs. RAM LAL RAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner (under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923), Bilaspur, in Case No. 8/84 1/87; decided on 15.11.1988. By this order, the claim of the appellants for compensation, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ , has been rejected. The appellants feel aggrieved by this order, therefore, they have assailed the same by way of this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the case of the appellants is that Tulsi Ram was on duty as watchman in the factory area between 12 p.m. to 8 a.m. on 31.1.1984. Since there was neither any heating arrangement nor woollens provided to him, Tulsi Ram caught cold as a result of which he developed pain in his stomach and during the course of his employment, he died on 1.2.1984 in the factory hospital where he was shifted. Therefore, Tulsi Ram died as a consequence of and in the course of his employment, thus enabling the appellants to move a petition to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bilaspur, for the grant of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ . Respondent No. 1, although admitted that Tulsi Ram was got employed through him, denied his liability for the payment of any compensation. Similarly, respondent No. 2 has also denied the liability for the payment of compensation. It is further asserted by the respondents that the claims and allegations of the appellants were imaginary, erroneous and false. It has also been denied that the appellants are entitled for the payment of compensation under the Act. It has also been denied that the death of Tulsi Ram occurred as a consequence of and in the course of employment. Other averments of the appellants in the claim petition have also been denied. The Commissioner framed the following issues in this case and the parties examined their respective witnesses in support of their pleas:

(3.) MR . K.S. Pathania, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has contended that the order of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') suffers from grave error of law since, in view of the evidence on record, there is clear evidence to establish that the deceased was a workman and was in the employment of respondent No. 2 and he died by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.