- (1.) This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution to the effect that the case involves a substantial question of law and is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2.) While dismissing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation this Court had agreed with the finding of the Commissioner that the death of the workman was not caused by an accident arising out of his employment.
(3.) Death of the workman had occurred at San Francisco (U. S. A.) and the Post mortem examination was performed there itself. According to the post mortem report the cause of death was fatty degeneration of the liver. It had been argued for the applicant that the report was not proved properly and secondary evidence was not admissible. The finding about the cause of death was therefore not based on legal evidence. The matter has been dealt with in paras 2 to 10 of this Court s judgement. Three reasons have been given to repel this argument and one of these is that the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply in all the complexities to inquiries under the Workmens Compensation Act. Whether a Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act is a Court as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and is bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act is a substantial question of law of general importance and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In a different context this question has been considered in Rajiyabi V/s. M. M. and Co., 1970 AIR(Bom) 278. But that case does not relate to the applicability of the Evidence Act for claims filed before the Commissioner appointed under the Workmens Compensation Act.;