1 FA : 326/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.326 OF 2011 Smt. Padma Haldar Majhi .... Appellant Vs. M/s Spage Developers Constuction .... Respondent Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 21st March, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 7th December 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's’ Compensation and Judge, 10th, Labour Court, Mumbai rejecting the application for compensation filed by the applicant on account of death of her husband. By the application filed, she sought compensation under Section 4, 4-A, 10, 22 read with Rule 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the application, husband of the appellant was working as construction worker with the respondent on monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/-. She claimed that on 8th April 2006, her husband died during the course of employment. He suffered stomach pain injuries, which resulted into his death. The respondent in his written statement disputed the claim of the applicant that deceased was the employee of the respondent. 2 FA : 326/2011 According to him, the deceased had on or about 7 to 9 times worked on his construction site as a casual daily labourer, for which he was paid daily wages. Therefore, there was no employer and employee relationship between the two. As regards the death of deceased, the respondent contended that the deceased was found dead in his temporary makeshift residential hut adjoining to the construction site on 8th April 2006 at about 4 pm. There was no incident of accident reported or even alleged by the applicant. There is also no casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment. The post mortem report of the deceased indicated the cause of death as cirrhosis of liver with Hepatospen. There was no external injury or suspicious sign of accident or an industrial injury or occupational disease shown in the Police papers. The supervisor of the respondent had informed only about the death of the deceased and not any accident or incident. According to the respondent, the very fact that the deceased was suffering from cirrhosis of liver with Heapatosplen, would indicate that he must have been a habitual consumer of alcohol, which resulted into his death. 2. The Commissioner found that there was no evidence whatsoever produced by the applicant before him to establish the relationship of employer and employee. There was also no incident of accident or industrial injury or any occupational ailment alleged. The Commissioner noted that the material produced before him showed that on 8th April 2006, the deceased was found dead in his makeshift hutment. His body was sent for post-mortem examination. The report of post mortem examination produced before the court did not disclose any visible injury 3 FA : 326/2011 on the body of the deceased. It stated the cause of death to be “due to cirrhosis of liver of Hepatosplen”. In view of this evidence, the Commissioner dismissed the claim of the applicant. Perusal of the pleadings of the appellant as also the evidence completely justifies the decision of the learned Commissioner. There is nothing to show that the deceased died on account of either accident or any industrial injury. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)