- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2771 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: M/S STOVE KRAFT PVT. LTD., NO. 81/1, MEDAMARANAHALLI AROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS THAYAPPANAHALLI DODDI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK/DIST. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS THAYAPPANAHALLI DODDI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK/DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L.SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2012 PASSED IN NO. WCA/FC/CR-35/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR, THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.06.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT The respondent filed this appeal challenging the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Ramanagara District (for short 'Labour Commissioner), in No.WCA/FC/CR-35/2011 dated 26.09.2013. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Labour commissioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that one T.N. Chetan was working in the respondent - Company as System Administrator from 01.09.2010. The Company agreed to pay salary of Rs.7,979/- per month. The said Chetan was working in the Company for 10 hrs per day. On 22.07.2011 as usual he was working in the company, at 11.00 a.m, he got chest pain, immediately, he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Harohalli. Thereafter, for higher treatment, the Company intended to shift - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 him to Higher Medical Centre and they called for ambulance and while shifting Chetan to Higher Medical Centre, on the way he died. 4. The claimants further contend that deceased was aged 25 years. Due to work stress and strain, he suffered heart attack and died. Therefore, the said death was caused in the course of employment and arising out of the said employment. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition under the Employee's compensation Act, 1923 before the Labour Commissioner. 5. Respondent admitted that the deceased Chetan was serving in their Company as System Administrator on monthly pay of Rs.7,979/- and on the date of incident he complained about chest pain and immediately he was taken to hospital and for higher treatment before shifting him to higher Medical Centre, he died of heart attack. The respondent - Company disputed death of Chetan was arising out of employment as a result of strain or stress in the office work. Due to his health condition he died of heart attack. Therefore, respondent was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Labour Commissioner framed necessary points for consideration. 7. The claimant examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P5. The respondent examined three witnesses. 8. The Labour Commissioner after hearing both the parties, by impugned order dated 26.09.2012 allowed the claim petition directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.8,65,254/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The same is challenged by the respondent in the present appeal. 9. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the death occurred out of and in the course of employment in the absence of casual connection between the employment and his death?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that mere death during the course of employment is not sufficient. There should be nexus between employment as well as death of an employee. In this case, deceased was admittedly a software technician and he was entrusted to look after the computers and printers of the Company. There were four assistants to assist him. There was no heavy work in the Company to the deceased. On the date of accident, he complained of chest pain and Company provided all the medical assistance. When they called ambulance to shift him to the hospital for higher treatment, he died on the way due to severe heart attack. There was no nexus between the death of the Chetan and his employment. Labour Commissioner did not consider these points and accepted the case of the claimant and held that death was arising out of the employment and directed the respondent to pay the compensation. The said finding is erroneous and not tenable. In support of his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court: • AIR 1970 SC 1906 - Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak • AIR 1997 SC 432 Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Ors. Vs. Francis De Costa and Ors. • 1999 (82) FLR 740- Hemant Talkies Vs. Meera Bai. • (1985) I LLJ 472 Bom J.F. Pareira vs. Eastern Watch Company Ltd. • 1999 (1) KarLJ 356, Ananthamma vs. The Managing Director, Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Raichur. 12. The learned counsel for the claimants contend that evidence led by respondent corroborates the case of the claimants. Chetan had a chest pain in the morning. He was not given proper treatment. Respondent examined the witnesses. In their cross-examination, it was admitted that they had not provided with required treatment. He further submits that deceased was working with pressure and strain. He alone was attending the problem of computers and printers. He was a System Administrator, the work pressure, stress and strain caused him heart attack. He was hale and healthy and there was no history of any heart ailment to the deceased. It is also not the case of the respondent that deceased had any heart - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 ailment. Therefore, any prudent man can infer that death was due to work pressure, stress and strain. The Labour Commissioner assessing the evidence in detail came to a right conclusion and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Moreover, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the judgments relied by the appellant are not applicable to the present facts of the case. In the said case, the facts are totally different and claimants of the said case failed to show that accident was arising out of the employment and during the course of employment. Therefore, their contention was rejected. In this case, incident had taken place while the deceased was working in the premises of the respondent. He was aged about 25 years and hale and healthy. He complained with his parents about the pressure of work in the Company. He used to work above 10 hrs per day, which led to heart attack. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.201567/2017 dated 23.12.2020 in the case of The Divisional Controller, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 NEKRTC, Kalaburagi vs. Smt. Kiran W/o Vijaykumar and others. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. The deceased Chetan was serving as a System Administrator in the Company of respondent and drawing a salary of Rs.7,979/- per month. He was aged about 25 years and died on 22.07.2011 due to heart attack are not in dispute. He died during the course of employment is not disputed. 15. The main question to be decided is: "Whether there was any nexus between the death of Chetan with his employment?' 16. To consider the above said fact, it is necessary to refer to Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923: 3. Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a *[employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the *[employee] for a period exceeding three days; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to— (i) the *[employee] having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the *[employee] to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of *[employees], or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the *[employee] of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of *[employee] 17. PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that deceased was hale and healthy and there was no any health issues to him prior to his death. In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 has stated that, deceased was under work pressure. He was working up to 10.00 p.m. daily. Due to the said strain and stress, he had serious impact on his health. In his cross- examination, he has reiterated the same. Nothing was brought out to discard it. 18. The IT head of respondent - Company was examined as RW-1. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that whenever there was urgency in the office, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 deceased worked till 10.00 p.m. The respondent has not produced any materials to show that everyday the deceased was attending office only during the office hours and not beyond the office hours as stated by IT head. Two doctors were examined. They also have not stated that there was any prior history of the heart ailment in the deceased, Chetan, prior to his death. 19. Looking at the entire evidence available on record, one can infer that the heart attack of the deceased Chetan was due to pressure of work, stress and strain in the work place. Otherwise there would be no reason for a 25 year old to suffer a heart attack. There were 40 systems in the said Company, as per the evidence of IT. It was also stated that there were four persons including the deceased in the said Company. They together use to attend the computer repairs and other technical issues. Considering these facts, there might have been work pressure on the deceased. The effects of the work, related stress and strain differ from person to person depending on their physical and mental capacity. One person may be able to sustain and another may not be able to sustain. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the deceased appears to be unable to sustain the stress and strain of the office work, which resulted in heart attack. This appears to be the only conclusion supported by the available evidence. Therefore, it comes within the parameters of "an injury arising out of and during the course of employment". It is true that in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim petition was rejected on the ground that there was no nexus between the accident and the employment. There cannot be straight jacket formula to consider these facts. Therefore, the principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court are distinguishable and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court reported in The Divisional Controller (NEKRTC) vs. Smt. Kiran W/o Vijaykumar and anr in MFA.No.201567/2014, is applicable to the facts of the present case. 20. The Labour commissioner has in detail appreciated the evidence on record and rightly held that there was a nexus between the death of Chethan and his employment. It was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 held that incident occurred during the course of employment, and the respondent was directed to pay the compensation. 21. The Labour commissioner has calculated the compensation in accordance with workmen's compensation Act and it is not in serious dispute. The main dispute is that there was no nexus between the incident and his employment. The said contention of the respondent is not tenable. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law framed above is answered against the appellant. 23. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The labour commissioner has calculated the compensation in accordance with Workmen Compensation Act and it is not in serious dispute. iii. The order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ramanagara District, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26683 MFA No. 2771 of 2013 Ramanagara in WCA/FC/CR-35/2011 is confirmed. iv. If any amount is deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Send back trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment. If any amount is deposited by the appellant before this court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1