1. In this appeal, by a workman, against the order of the learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding a sum of Rs. 110-4-0, as compensation, in his favour, it was urged, that the Commissioner, has erred in not holding, that the appellant has suffered permanent total disablement, due to an occupational disease, contracted by him, during the course of his employment. I was, therefore, requested to direct the respondent, to pay to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 3,360, as compensation, under Schedule IV, read with Section 4 (1) (b) and Section 3 (2) of the Act
2. The facts, as found by the Commissioner, are that the appellant was employed in the moulding section of the Foundry. He fell ill, while working and was unable to perform his duties for a period of three and a half months. Consequently, the Commissioner granted him a sum of Rs. 110-4-0, as compensation, representing half monthly wages, during the appellant's period of absence from his duties.
3. On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on Sukumar Banerjee v. Hiralal Chatterjee, AIR 1954 Cal 48 (A). There a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that one Khuda Bux, workman, was entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,940, as compensation, since, it was found, that Khuda Bux had developed chronic lead poisoning, during the course of his occupation, resulting in permanent and total disability.
4. In the present case, however, there is nothing to show, that the disease, contracted by the appellant (neurosis), was developed by him during the course of his occupation. During the hearing of this appeal, it was stated that the appellant has exhibited signs of mental derangement. Insanity and allied disorders, are not to be found in the list of occupational diseases enumerated in Schedule III. It was suggested that the expression 'compressed air illness' would include insanity, but I am unable to accept this plea.
Other authorities cited by the appellant, also refer to cases, where the workmen concerned, developed occupational diseases, resulting in disablement. These authorities are not applicable here, because neurosis is not an occupational disease.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the burden of proof lay heavily upon the appellant, and it was for him to establish affirmatively his case. In this connection Mr. Dalip Singh cited the following authorities:--
(a) Vishram Yesu v. Dadabhoy Hormasji & Co., AIR 1942 Bom 175 (B), there a Division Bench of that High Court held, that:--
"The burden is upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of the employment as well as in the course of the employment."
On the same analogy, it was for the appellant, to prove, that he developed neurosis and insanity as a result of his employment.
(b) G. Powell & A. Ghahy Co. v. Panchu M6ka-dam, AIR 1942 Pat 453 (C), where a Division Bench of that High Court indicated that:
"Because a man is injured during the time of his employment it does not follow that the accident arose out of or in the course of such employment."
On the same analogy, because the appellant developed neurosis, during the time of his employment, it cannot be said that the disease was due to the nature of his employment.
(c) Mangalchand v. Mumtaz Begum, AIR 1952 Nag 20 (D), where a learned Judge of that High Court observed that:
"When death or incapacity of a workman is caused by acceleration of disease, already existing due to an accident, the death or incapacity will be deemed to have resulted from accident. But when the incapacity or death results from the disease itself, independent of the accident, the workman or his dependants, as the case may be, will not be allowed compensation under the Act."
On the same analogy, it was suggested for the respondent that the symptoms of neurosis developed by the appellant were independent of his occupation.
(d) Bhagubai v. General Manager, Central Rly., (S) AIR 1955 Bom 105 (E), where a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court remarked that
"There must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause."
In the present case, no causal connection has been established between the nature of the appellant's occupation and the disease developed by him.
(e) Paresh Chandra v. Jawahir Press, AIR 1955 Cal 306 (F). There a Division Bench of that High Court held that:
"Whether a particular disease was contracted at a time when the person (workman in a printing press) concerned was employed under 'A' or 'B' or 'C' is a (pure question of fact and it cannot be agitated in an appeal before the High Court."
6. In view of all, that has been said above, I am unable to hold that the appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,360 as compensation under Schedule IV read with Section 4 (1) (b) and Section 3 (2) of the Act.
7. The learned Commissioner, has already awarded to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 110-4-0, as half monthly wages, for the period of his absence from duty. In my opinion, therefore, nothing further is payable to the appellant. Consequently, this appeal must fail.
8. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. The appellant has been keeping indifferent health, and it was argued that he has shown symptoms of mental derangement. His contention is pitiable. I, therefore, leave the parties to bear their respective costs, of this appeal.