- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100642 OF 2021 (ECA) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL), SATTI ROAD, ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHRI. A. G. SHANMUKHAPPA. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. UJWALA W/O. VISHWAS @ VISHWANATH KAMBLE, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI, TQ; ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. 2. SMT. VAISHALI W/O. SANDEEP KAMBLE, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUTAWAD, TQ: SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416102. 3. SHRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O. VISHWAS @ VISHWANATH KAMBLE, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. 4. SHRI. SANTOSH S/O. VISHWAS @ VISHWANATH KAMBLE, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2020 PASSED IN E.C.A. NO. 2/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER UNDER EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT, ATHANI, AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the respondent challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Additional Senior Civil Judge in ECA No. 2 of 2017 dated 16th October 2020, wherein respondents were awarded compensation of Rs. 6,92,760/- Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner. 2. Claimants being Wife and children of D.C. Vishwas alias Vishwanath Narayan Khamble, (for short ‘Vishwas’), filed claim petition Under Section 3, read with Section 22 of Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Athani (for short - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 ‘Commissioner’) claiming for compensation due to death of Vishwas during course of his employment. 3. According to their contention deceased Vishwas was an employee of respondent. There exists relationship of employer and employee. Vishwas was working as Mason under respondent from 15.06.2015 in construction of hostel building at Athani. Deceased was under pressure to complete time bound work of construction of hostel. On 18.06.2015, deceased was engaged in construction work of a Hostel building along with other labourers. Around 1 p.m. due to stress, strain and restless work, said Vishwas suffered severe heart attack and while he was shifted to the hospital of Dr.Chaini, at Athani, wherein he was declared as a brought dead. On the report, the police registered unnatural death case No. 11/2015 regarding the incident. The post-mortem was conducted. It is further contention of the claimants that he died due to continuous stressful and strainful work with the respondent-employer. Therefore, they are entitled for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 compensation. They have also contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of death and the respondent was paying him Rs.450/- per day as wages. Claimants were depending upon earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they have prayed to award compensation. 4. The respondent disputed the averments stated in the claim petition. According to its contention, he was not an employee of the respondent. There was no relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent. One Chaman Sahib Mansoor Alias, Chand Sahib Mansoor had completed the work through the department. The death was not accidental and caused during course of employment as stated in the claim petition. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Commissioner framed necessary points for determination and recorded evidence of both the parties. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the materials - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 available on the card, held that death was caused during course of employment and respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, passed impugned order dated 16th October 2020. 6. This appeal is admitted to consider following substantial question of law. Whether death of Vishwas was accidental death during course of employment as contemplated under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act? Therefore, respondent is liable to pay the compensation 7. The said substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons. 8. Undisputedly on 18.06.2015 when the deceased was working in the construction site around 1 p.m. he had a severe heart attack and due to which he died. When he was taken to hospital, it was declared that he was brought dead. Therefore, death was taken place during the course of the employment. The Commissioner after recording of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 the evidence of both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record held that while discharging his duty as a mason, the said Vishwas died. 9. Respondent contended that he was not employed by respondent and one Chand Sab, who had taken the contract of construction took deceased to work as Mason. The deceased was working under him. Therefore, there is no relationship of employer and employee between Vishwas and respondent. The said contention is not acceptable. According to section 2 (dd) of the Act defines the term employee which reads as under: “(dd)"employee" means a person, who is--(i)a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub- divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or(ii)( a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship,” Admittedly at the time of incident deceased was working in construction of the building belonging to respondent. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 Hence he was an employee of the respondent. Merely there was an contractor, who hired the labourer and provided to construct a building does not mean that he was not employed with respondent. There are no materials to substantiate the contention of respondent that the deceased was an employee of the contractor. Hence, the said contention was properly considered and answered by the Commissioner and it was a fact-finding Court. On the contrary, this appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act wherein only substantial law needs to be considered and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. There are no grounds to find fault with the said finding by the Commissioner. 10. The 2nd point is whether death of Vishwas was accidental death occurred while discharging his duty. It is necessary to refer Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act to understand the said term. Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act reads as under: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 3. Employer's liability for compensation.— — (1) If personal injury is caused to an 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; (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. (2) If an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if an employee, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if an employee whilst in the service of one or - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: Provided that if it is proved,— (a) that an employee whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment; and (b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section: Provided further that if it is proved that an employee who having served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section. (2A) If an employee employed in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just. (3) The Central Government or the State Government, after giving, by notification in the Official Gazette, not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply , in the case of a notification by the Central Government, within the territories to which this Act extends or, in case of a notification by the State Government, within the State as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments. 11. The main contention of the learned Council for appellant is that the death of Vishwas was natural. He must have some heart ailment and he died due to heart - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 attack. According to the report submitted to the police, he started working in the construction of the hostel from 15.06.2015. Within two and a half days, he died and there are no materials to show that he was under tremendous pressure of work and moreover he was a mason and if there was pressure of work then it was on the Contractor or the person who was successful in taking tender from the government. Under these circumstances, at no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that deceased died during the course of employment or it was an accidental death during employment, as defined under Section 3 of the Act. 12. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Sreshti versus Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668. “22. There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn. (1996) 6 SCC 1 in regard to essential ingredients for - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The principles are: (1) There must be a casual connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case.” With these reasons prayed to set aside the impugned order. 13. The Learned Counsel for respondents-claimants vehemently contends that admittedly deceased was working in the construction of the hostel. He was working restlessly for early completion of the building as instructed by the respondent. Though he was a mason, he had to work in the hot sun in the construction site. Stress does not mean that it should only to the white collar job. Even a coolie had a stress if he is compelled to complete the work - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 at the earliest and there are no materials placed by the respondent on record to show that he had any heart ailment. The deceased was aged about 45 years and he was said to be healthy by his wife and children. Under those circumstances, there was no other reason for death of the Vishwas except the stress and strain of his work, that too in the hot Sun, in the construction site. In all the probability, it comes within the definition of Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, referred above and hence the respondent who is an employer, is liable to pay the compensation. 14. He further submitted that the Commissioner considered this fact in the impugned order and came to right conclusion. Thus the findings of the Commissioner are based on the materials available on record. Under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, this court cannot re-appreciate evidence and decide on merits of the case. This court has a limited jurisdiction to consider the only question of law or if there is any error in the findings - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 of the Commissioner, then only this court can interfere in the said findings. 15. Advocate for respondent relied on the judgments in the case of Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Glubarga Vs Sangamma and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 20 and Param Pal Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2013 ACJ 526. With these reasons he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 16. He has also submitted that in the above said Param Pal Singh, the case referred by Appellant in Shakuntala was considered and the Honorable Supreme Court did not agree with the findings of the said case. Therefore, the law laid down in the Param Pal Singh prevails over and it is a subsequent judgment of the Honorable Apex Court, which needs to be followed as precedent. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 17. The Commissioner considering the evidence of both the parties and held that death of Vishwas was accidental - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 and occurred during course of employment and death was caused as a consequence of stress and strain in doing his work. The said funding is based on the facts available on the record. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent, the scope under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act is limited and it cannot re- appreciate the evidence, unless the findings are perverse and arbitrary. 18. Looking to the materials available on record, it doesn't appear that the findings of the Commissioner are perverse or arbitrary. Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act is referred above. Though it says that death or injury should be caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, it does not mean that there should be an accident. In this case the repeated contention of the claimants that he was doing work as a Mason for continuous three days with respondent; He was working under tremendous pressure to complete the construction at the earliest. Therefore the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 said stress led to heart attack of the deceased. The said contention cannot be ruled out. How much strain and stress a person can sustain depends upon individual person. Admittedly, the deceased had to work under the hot sun, in an open site, who was constructing the hostel. Normally, when a tender is issued by the government for construction of any building, then it will be time-bound. Under those circumstances, the supervisor of the building who was looking after the construction, must have pressurized the employees or the mason working in the construction site, to complete the building at the earliest. That might be led to heart attack of deceased Vishwas. Under those circumstances, it has to be accepted that death was caused during course of employment and it was an accidental death. 19. PW1 in her evidence has stated about the facts of the case and she has stated that her husband died due to stress and strain in discharging his duties and performing the work. The respondent in her cross examination even - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 denied working as mason to construct hostel buildings. She also denied that deceased Vishwas did not die due to stress and strain. PW1 is not an eyewitness. She examined the contractor as PW2. PW2 corroborated the evidence of PW1 and stated that due to pressure of work and strain, Vishwas sustained severe heart attack and died due to the same. In his cross examination, he has narrated the nature of work of the deceased as well as other Masons and he has also stated that death of Vishwas was due to stress and strain. Therefore nothing was brought out in the cross examination of PW1 and 2 that death of Vishwas was natural or he died due to ill health. 20. The respondent examined RW1 and in his evidence also he has stated that normally the Government work will be given to a successful bidder in the tender and the construction should be completed within the time prescribed in the tender. He has also stated that the contractor who is successful bidder shall maintain attendance register and other relevant registers. In the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 objections it is stated that the construction work was given to Chand Sab but during the course of evidence, he says that contract work was given to one Hanamant. It appears that respondent is not bringing true facts before the Court. It appears that just to avoid liability of respondent to pay compensation, he has examined said witness. 21. The contractor, i.e., PW2 himself says that the construction was to be completed within a time bound limit. Therefore the Masons were under pressure to complete the work. These factors leads to an inference that due to said pressure, stress and strain deceased Vishwas suffered a heart attack and died. In view of the law laid down in the above said judgment, undoubtedly it can be held that death of Vishwas was during the course of the employment and due to stress and strain in completion of his work. 22. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is enacted to provide immediate financial assistance to an employee if - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 he sustained grievous injuries and suffers from permanent disability and also members of his family if an employee dies suddenly due to the incident during course of the employment, so that they can survive without much difficulty. 23. In the case of Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. Gulbarga (referred Supra), the Division Bench of this court held as under: “8. Therefore, if a workman suffers a personal injury unexpectedly or suddenly and such personal injury suffered by the workman can be attributed to the work undertaken by the workman or has some connection to the nature of the duties discharged by a workman, such an injury suffered can be treated as a result of the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In the instant case, the evidence on record shows that the workman was working at Chittapur depot of the appellant and he had boarded the bus in the early hours of the day, to carryout his duties as Conductor. It is on record that after the bus proceeded around 40 kilometers, the workman developed chest pain and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the bus at Naladurg Bus stand and admitted the workman to Ashwini Hospital. Among several causes for chest pain, one of the causes is strain and stress of work. Under these circumstances, the nature of work one undertakes, whether it - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 be carrying a load on head, or driving a vehicle or working as a conductor or carrying out more strenuous work, where physical exercise is involved, have strain and stress of the work on the individual. Further, for development of chest pain or heart attack, physical exercise or physical strain alone is not the cause; and even the mental strain also could be a cause for chest pain or advancing the heart-attack Therefore, even assuming that the workman had the block of the arteries of his heart, the free flow of blood to the heart could be affected on account of the strain of work. Therefore, since admittedly, the workman at the time when he developed chest pain was conducting the bus as its conductor, it is reasonable to infer that he died on account of personal injury suffered by him, in an accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment. We would also like to point out that taking a view, different from the, one we have expressed above, would be defeating the very object of the legislation. As noticed by us earlier, the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to give some security to the workman. We are of the considered view that the provisions of the Act is in the nature of a 'Mini Insurance Scheme' to the workmen. Therefore, the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually quite different from the liability under tort. Therefore, the interpretation to the provisions of the Act calls for a broad and liberal construction, lest its evident object is defeated. It is necessary to point out that while death is a natural event of life, the cause like heart attack or any other ailment cannot be considered as natural event that would take place, as contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant. The strain of the work may be mental or physical; depending upon the nature of the work one takes up and the physical and mental - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 condition of an individual, a person may suffer heart - attack. Heart -attack suffered, sometimes, if immediate and proper medical care is provided, may save the life of the patient. In this case the workman was on duty and was admitted to an moffisil hospital. It is not the case of the appellant that the best medical treatment was made available to the workman when he complained of chest - pain.” 24. In similar circumstances, Conductor of the bus while discharging his duty suffered with a heart attack and died. The Division Bench of this court, looking to the facts and circumstances held that will amount to death during course of the employment. 25. In the case of Param Pal Singh (referred above), the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed a similar view and in paragraph No. 27, it has observed as under: “27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand, which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation, it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an ‘untoward mishap’ can therefore be reasonably described as an ‘accident’ as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer’s trade or business.” 26. As rightly submitted by the Learned Council for respondent, in above said judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Sakuntala Chandrakant Srishti, relied by the learned counsel for appellant. Though it is not expressly overruled but by implication, law laid down in the case of Shakuntala is overruled and it was not followed by Honorable Supreme Court in the Param Pal Singh. In view of the law laid on by the Division Bench of this court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Param Pal Singh, which is - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 aptly applicable to the facts of the present case, unhesitatingly it could be held that Vishwas died during the course of employment due to stress and strain and respondent is liable to pay the compensation. 27. In the Param Pal Singh Apex Court relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Mallikarjuna G. Hiraimath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2009 ACJ 721 SC) and in the case of Sundarbai v. General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Jabalpur, rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in 1976, ACJ 346 (MP), and held that accident means an untoward mishap, which is not expected or designed by the workman. Injury means psychological injury. Accident and injury are distinct in cases where the accident is an event of happening extremely to a man, for example when a workman falls from a ladder and suffers injury; but accident may be an event happening internally to a man and in such cases accident and injury coincide, such cases are illustrated by bursting of an aneurysm, - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 failure of heart and like, while a workman is doing his normal work. 28. In the present case also, the workman while doing his normal work of a mason, he sustained a severe heart attack and died. Therefore it falls under the definition of section 3 of the Act. The Commissioner considered these facts and rightly held that death of Vishwas was caused during course of employment and directed the respondent to pay the compensation. I don't find any illegality or error in the said findings. For the above discussion, the substantial question of law is answered against respondent and I pass following order. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Athani dated 16th October 2020 in ECA No. 2/2017 is confirmed. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6337 MFA No. 100642 of 2021 Send back the TCR along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49