LAXMIBAI ATMARAM Vs. CHAIRMAN AND TRUSTEES BOMBAY PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner (or Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, by which he dismissed the application of Shrimati Laxmibai, the widow of one Atmaram Ramchandra Karangutkar, for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner held that the deceased Atmaram was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, and he also held that the deceased did not die of an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased Atmaram.

(2.) THE facts really are not in dispute. The deceased was a watchman employed by the Post Trust at its pumping station at Carnac Bunder, Bombay, and as usual he was on night duty on the night of August 20. 1951, and the hours of his duty were 7 p. m. to 7 a. m. At 1 a. m. on August 21 the deceased complained of pain in his chest and was asked to lie down. His condition deteriorated and at about 6 a. m, he died. The medical evidence showed that the deceased was suffering from heart disease and that the death was brought about by the strain caused by the deceased being on his legs for a certain period of time; and the two questions that we have to consider in this appeal are whether the learned Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a workman, and also whether he was right in holding that he did not die of injury by en accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(3.) THERE is not much difficulty about the first point A "workman" is defined in Section 2 (n) of the Act, and Clause (ii) of that section defines "workman", to the extent that it is material, as a person employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 400. in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and we have to turn to Schedule II for the purpose of determining whether the workman was employed in one of the capacities set out in that schedule, and the relevant clause Of that schedule is Clause (ii) which provides: