Bombay High Court
WALMIK BABASAHEB KAMBLE AND ORSversusTHE PRESIDENT, MALEGAON SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA, BARAMATI AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is dismissed, upholding the Commissioner’s finding that the death is not compensable under the Employees Compensation Act.
Summary
The appellants, children of a deceased sugar‑cane labourer, appealed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the Commissioner’s order that the death was not compensable. The father died on 1 May 2014 while employed by the sugar factory through a labour contractor. A post‑mortem showed death due to intestinal gangrene and perforation, which the medical officer attributed to excessive liquor consumption. The appellants offered no contrary medical evidence, and the Commissioner concluded that the death was not caused by any injury arising in the course of employment. The High Court found that the appeal raised no substantial question of law and upheld the Commissioner’s finding. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether death caused by intestinal gangrene due to excessive liquor consumption constitutes an injury arising out of and in the course of employment under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
- Whether the Commissioner’s finding that the death was not due to any injury during employment is legally sustainable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employees Compensation
- Section 30
- death in service
- cause of death
- post mortem
- liquor consumption
- industrial accident
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42360
1 31.FA.331.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AURANGABAD BENCH : AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.331 OF 2020
Walmik Babasaheb Kamble and ors .Vs. The President, Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana, Baramati and ors
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Y.K. Bobade, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15/09/2026
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in order to assail
judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the
Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Beed in W.M.C.
No.02 of 2016. Appellants are sons and daughter of late
Babasaheb Kamble who was engaged as a labour for cutting
sugar cane with respondent No.1/sugar factory through
respondent No.3/labour contractor.
2. It is the case of the appellants that their father
had died on 01.05.2014 during the course of his
employment with respondent No.1. After demise of the
deceased, post mortem examination was conducted. It is
mentioned in the post mortem report that he died due to
gangrene in the intestine. The respondents have examined
the medical officer who has conducted the post mortem of
the deceased. The medical officer stated that there was a
hole in the intestine of the deceased and that the intestine
was found to be ruptured. The medical officer opined that
2 31.FA.331.2020.odt
this medical condition had developed due to excessive
consumption of liquor. The reasons recorded in the post
mortem report shows cause of death as, “death due to
hypoxia due to intestinal obstruction and perforation”. The
appellants did not lead any medical evidence to the
contrary. The finding recorded by the learned
Commissioner that the death was not on account of any
injury suffered during the course of employment is based on
the aforesaid medical evidence.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the appeal does not given
rise to any substantial question of law. No case is made out
for interference. First Appeal is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Donge
Checking your session…