IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 MFA.No. 68 of 2010() -------------------- WCC.38/1998 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION & DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. .................... APPELLANT(S): IST OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS AND 2ND AOPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.SABOORA SAINUDHEEN, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD. 2. KUMARY SAJEENA, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD. 3. KUMARY SABEENA, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD. 4. KUMARY SANOOJA, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD. 5. KUMARY KADHEEJA, M/O.LATE SAINUDHEEN, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, ZACHARIA BAZAR WARD. 6. THE SECRETARY, AMBALAPUZHA THALUK HANDLING, LOADING HANDLING & TRANSPORTING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NO.A-751, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN (CAVEAT) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1111/2010 IN MFA NO.68/2010 DISMISSED 20/05/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 68 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kollam in W.C.C. 38/98. One Sainudeen while working for the first respondent under the 2nd respondent suffered chest pain on 20.1.95 and was taken to a doctor by name Francis. He was examined and was found to be suffering from angina as well as from retro stanal chest pain. ECG was taken and as ECG was normal. He was given some medicine and was advised to take rest. The person developed chest pain again on 24.1.95 and died on the same day on account of myocardial infraction. Now the Compensation Commissioner holds that the death is on account of the pain sustained in the course of employment and therefore it is an employment injury entitling him to get the compensation. The principle to be M.F.A.. 68 OF 2010 -:2:- followed in such cases are succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 2006 S.C. 2830(Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore). The Court held that, “Under Section 3(1) it has to be established that there was some casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear, of the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.” 2. Now admittedly the deceased Sainudeen was a head load worker. The nature of the head load work would indicate that it is a strenuous work. Even on 20.1.95 he got M.F.A.. 68 OF 2010 -:3:- pain while working and the doctor on that day observed that he was having angina besides some pain on the back of the chest. Though ECG was found to be normal on 24.1.95 he developed chest pain and was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha where he died on account of the myocardial infraction. 3. Now after the remand by this Court evidence has been adduced by examining the doctor who had issued the certificate. The said doctor is the person who had seen him on 20.1.95. He had deposed before Court that on 20.1.95 this Sainudeen came with chest pain and it was found that he was having retro stanal chest pain and on examination angina was also found out. The doctor would depose again that he developed some pain on 24.1.95 and he died on account of myocardial infraction. He had deposed before Court that a person who is a head load worker when suffering from angina is made to do hard work it will aggravate the disease and that resulted in myocardial infraction. The learned counsel for the appellant would M.F.A.. 68 OF 2010 -:4:- contend before me that on 20.1.95 he had only some chest pain and his ECG was found to be normal and thereafter had been discharged and only subsequently on 24.1.95 he had developed other complications which resulted in the death. The doctor has deposed that the reason for the myocardial infraction is on account of the coronary block or the clotting which had developed within a period of three or four days and that had resulted in the death. So the person had died of heart disease or heart attack is evidenced. The person was put to hard manual labour in the form of head load work. When a person suffering from angina is made to do hard work and that really created the problem then it can be held that it has been angina coupled with the hard work that has created a situation whereby on account of the strain and the nature of the work he had met with his end. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there is a connection for the chest pain with the hard work which he has to do and that hard work has created the complication thereby resulting in his death. So I find there is a casual connection M.F.A.. 68 OF 2010 -:5:- between the work and the disease which resulted in the aggravation of the disease and so it will come under the employment injury u/s 3(1) of the Act. 4. I had also perused the quantum awarded which appears to be only reasonable and in accordance with the schedule. Therefore the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-