IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 199 of 2006. Date of Decision: 25.8.2011. M/s S.V.M. Cottage Industries, Rajpura ….Appellant. Versus. Smt. Pritam Kaur …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan whereby the claim petition filed by Smt. Pritam Kaur widow of late Sh. Ram Dass was allowed and she (Smt. Pritam Kaur) was granted compensation of Rs.97,250/- and interest @ 12% amounting to Rs.69,604/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 1,66,854/-. 2. When the appeal was admitted, no substantial questions of law were framed. After going 2 through the record, I find that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- i) Whether the claim petition was filed within limitation? ii) Whether relationship of employer and employee was existing between the appellant and the deceased? iii) Whether there was no causal connection between the employment of the deceased and his accident? 3. As far as the first question is concerned, the death took place on 6.9.1997 and the petition was instituted on 2.12.1997 well within the period of limitation of two years as provided under the law. Therefore, the first question is answered against the appellant. 4. As far as the second question is concerned, it is indeed shocking and surprising that the Manager of the employer Shri D.P. Bhattacharya when he appeared in the witness box first denied that the deceased was in employment but then admitted that the deceased was employed on casual basis at a monthly salary of Rs.1373/-. Later on, he also admitted that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 60/- per day. In the salary register produced, the name of the deceased is mentioned except that he was not shown present on 6th September, 1997. He was 3 present till 5th September, 1997. Therefore, the deceased was definitely an employee of the appellant and this question is also decided against the appellant. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the employer is that the deceased died due to heart attack which has no causal connection with the employment. Reliance is placed by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 668, wherein, in the case of an employee dying of a heart attack, the apex Court held that no automatic presumption can be raised that the heart attack had a direct connection with the employment of the deceased. It would be pertinent to mention that in this judgment the apex Court clearly laid down that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. 6. The petitioner examined one Shri Sarwan Singh who is also an employee under the same employer and according to this witness, the deceased was engaged on hard manual labour. It stands proved on record, as admitted by the Manager also that the employer is engaged in manufacturing of agricultural implements out of iron and iron pipes and to shape 4 these implements, it is necessary to hammer the iron and iron pipes. The Manager submitted that the deceased was already suffering from heart ailment and on humanitarian grounds he was given light work of serving water to other employees. The statement of the Manager cannot be believed because in the record produced, the deceased is shown to be a semi skilled worker. Two of his co-workers have appeared in the witness box and have stated that the deceased was doing manual work by use of the hammer. The statement of the Manager cannot be relied upon because it is full of falsehoods. In fact, the Manager went on so far as to say that the deceased was not even an employee of the employer and was not present on that date, but when confronted with the material on record, had to admit that the deceased had been in the employment of the employer for the last 18 years and was present till the previous date. He then came up with a new story that the deceased fell on the road outside the factory and was taken to the hospital by the employer. This version is absolutely false. There is no cogent proof as to the cause of the death. It is not even clear that whether the deceased was died due to heart attack or some other problem, but the fact 5 stands proved on record that the deceased is engaged in hard manual labour and during the course of his duties, he felt giddy and was removed/rushed to the hospital and died. Where a manual labourer feels giddy during the course of employment, unless it is shown that he has died due to some natural cause, it would be reasonable to presume that the stress of work has led to the ailment. This is an accident within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge 25th august, 2011. (Krn Guleria)