DILIP KUMAR SETH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 1998 passed in Claim Case No. 122 of 1992 by the learned Judge, in the Court of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, Calcutta.
(2.) THE appellant had lodged a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act on account of her husband's death. She alleged that his death was due to injury suffered by her husband while in his employment on board the vessel Chatrapati Shivaji belonging to the Shipping Corporation of India Limited. The injury, according to her, is related to the stress and strain suffered by her husband in the course of his employment. The husband had boarded the vessel, after he was found fit on medical examination in terms of Section 98 of the Merchants Shipping Act, on 29th March, 1990. On board, he was found ill and was signed off on 23rd August, 1990. Thereafter, his treatment was arranged by the respondent. The husband of the appellant died on 13th January, 1991. According to her, the death was the result of an injury, which is casually related to the employment. As such it is a case within the scope and ambit for grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent, on the other hand, had denied that the death was related to any injury in course of employment. According to them, the husband of the appellant died out of the ailment, which is wholly unconnected with employment. There is no exceptional circumstances to relate the death to any injury sustained during the course of employment. Relying on various documents, it was contended that it was a death out of a disease wholly unconnected with the employment and not as a result of any stress and strain.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant points out that this question involves a substantial question of law, since the ascertainment of the relevance of the disease with the injuries sustained in course of employment is a question of inference which gives rise to substantial question of law and not a question of fact as such. He argued conversely that the learned Judge had omitted to consider certain material facts in order to relate the injury to employment. He had overlooked certain material facts available on record. He had come to an inference on the basis of such material facts, which, in law, could not have been arrived at. Such drawing of an inference is a question of law. In the present case, it is definitely be a substantial one. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as contemplated in Sub-section (3) thereof.;