Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. This appeal by the employer is against the award of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased workman.
2. The facts of the case are:-
The claimants-respondents, had filed a petition, seeking compensation in respect of the death of a driver, who had committed suicide. It was contended, that after finishing his duty on a particular day, the deceased had returned home and it is claimed that he was under extreme mental stress because of alleged harassment at the work by his superiors and therefore, it was urged that the death of the workman had a causal connection with his employment, in that, it arose out of his employment. The appellant had resisted the claim admitting that he was a driver. It was vehemently urged that mere was no causal connection between the death and the employment. The Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner' for brevity), having awarded compensation in the face of the Contest, the present appeal is filed.
3. Shri. S.V. Angadi, appearing for the appellant, would contend that the deceased workman had committed suicide by hanging at his residence. The alleged accident was not an accident at all, but a pre-meditated not on the part of the deceased workman and that there was no causal connection between the death and his employment. The allegation that he was under stress, which was brought on by harassment by superiors at his place of employment, was not established. It was a self-serving claim on the part of the claimants. The wage adopted for purposes of calculating the compensation, is also without any basis. Further, the deceased was admittedly, a resident of Maharashtra State. There was no document to indicate that the deceased ever lived in Bijapur District, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, who had entertained a claim and the incident never having taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, there was a failure on the part of the Commissioner to entertain the claim without issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 21(1) of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Therefore, the Commissioner was in error in awarding compensation in the face of these admitted circumstances and would give rise to the following questions of law:-
1) Whether the act of suicide committed by the deceased constitutes as having been done during the course of employment?
2) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case?
3) Whether the award is legally sustainable?
4. Per contra, Shri. Harsh Desai, appearing for the claimants-respondents, would submit that there was a causal connection between the death and the employment. To bring a case for compensation within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act, it was riot necessary that the workman was actually working at the time of the accident. The positive evidence on the part of the widow of the deceased-workman to state me mental stress undergone by the deceased workman prior to his death on account of harassment by the superiors at his place of work, would establish the causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. He would secondly contend that just as physical stress brought about by virtue of strain at the work engaged by a workman being a cause for injury or death is capable of being attributed as the causal connection arising out of the employment the mental stress, having brought about the extreme act of suicide on the part of the workman, is no less a case which can be construed as an occupational disease and therefore, would establish the causal connection between the death of the workman and the employment. He would submit that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and whether it violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held in the case of P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India and Anr. : 1994CriLJ1605 that Section 309 IPC deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanise our penal laws. It is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide. That an act of suicide. cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy, and an act of attempted suicide has no baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit it causes no harm to others, because of which, State's, interference with the personal liberty of the concerned persons is not called for. He would therefore submit, that the act of suicide occurs when a workman who is afflicted with mental stress, reaches a breaking point in his mental stability. He would contend that the breaking point is an occurrence which is unexpected and without design on the part of the workman and therefore, would be an accident and it is certainly relatable to and is an incident arising during and in the course of his employment. His mental state has an inextricable link with the conditions at work, and therefore, the claim for compensation has been rightly awarded.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent, in support of his contentions, would rely on the following judgments:-
Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommad Issak : (1970)ILLJ16SC , which was a case of a seaman employed as a deck-hand, The seaman had been complaining of chest pain and insomnia. The Medical Officer had prescribed sedative tablets. The seaman, who was on the deck was last seen near the bridge of the ship at about 2.30 a.m. At 6.15 a.m. in the morning, he was found missing. A search was undertaken, but it was futile. On a claim for compensation by his legal heirs, it was contended that there was no causal connection between the employment and the death. The Supreme Court held that to come within the Act, the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. 'In the course of employment' mean 'in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it'. The words 'arising out of employment' are understood to mean that 'during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. There must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.
He further relies on a judgment in the case of The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Siddappa and Ors. 2004(2) KCCR SN 181 at Page 201 wherein it is held that me court should advance the object and Intendentment of an act and it should not be strict and ritualistic.
He also relies on a judgment in the case of Mariam Bee v. Town and Country Development Authority, wherein, in the case of a workman, Chowkidar, dying due to heart failure and where it was found that physical stress and strain, coupled with mental tension, resulted in cardiac failure and that there was a causal connection between his employment and his death.
He also relies on the case of Sambhu Singh v. Kamrun Nissa and Anr. , which was a case of a workman having died as a result of physical stress at work.
6. Shri. S.V. Angadi, the counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, relies on a judgment in the case of The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Francis De Costa : (1997)ILLJ34SC , which involved a workman who had met with an accident on his way to the place of his employment and the accident had occurred about 1 kilometre away from the place of his employment. The accident had occurred at 4.15 p.m. and the duty-shift of the workman would have commenced at 4.30 p.m. The workman was going to his place of work on a bicycle. He was hit by a lorry belonging to his employers. The Supreme Court, in dealing with the case, felt that the injuries suffered by the workman could not have been said to have been caused, arising out of and in the course of his employment. Unless an employee can establish that the injury was caused or had its origin in his employment, he cannot succeed in a claim based on Section 2(8) of the Act. The words 'accident ... arising out ... his employment' indicate that any accident which occurred while going to the place of employment or for the purpose of employment, cannot be said to have arisen out of his employment. There is no causal connection between the accident and the employment. It could not be held that the employment begins from the moment the employee sets out from his house for the factory and in such a case, even if the employee stumbles and falls down at the doorstep of his house, the accident cannot be taken as having taken place in the course of his employment. This interpretation would lead to absurdity and has to be avoided.
7. On these rival contentions, the admitted circumstance that the deceased workman was not on actual duty at the time of his death, would require considering the fact whether the alleged mental stress, which the workman was undergoing, having brought about the act of suicide on his part could be an incident of his employment and whether the mental stress could be termed an occupational disease, which has caused an act beyond the control of the deceased workman, which could be termed as an accident. In this regard, Schedule-III to The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which lists out 'occupational diseases' does not include mental stress or allied illnesses as being occupational diseases. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the act of suicide was brought about by acute stress, which was the cause for the death. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the workman was driven to suicide by virtue of conditions at his workplace and therefore there should be held to be a causal connection, is a proposition which is plausible, but the findings in this regard are not capable of being arrived at in a summary proceeding before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and such a finding could not have been arrived at by the Commissioner from the material placed on record. Therefore, it cannot be safely presumed that there was a causal connection between the death of the workman by an act of suicide and his employment. The contention that the Supreme Court has, in the case of P. Rathinam (supra) has held that suicide is not opposed to public policy and therefore, the death of the workman having occurred on account of suicide, could be considered as a ground for the grant of compensation, is not tenable, in view of the judgment in the case of P. Rathinam, having been overruled by a later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Kaur (Smt.) v. State of Punjab etc. : 1996CriLJ1660 .
8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned award of the Commissioner is set aside. The amount in deposit is to be refunded to the appellant.