Workman compensation requires evidentiary proof of death during employment; mere presumption is legally insufficient.

The appellants are the dependents of the deceased, Jayantibhai, who was employed as a cleaner on a truck (No. GJ 17 T 4166) owned by Ahmed Moosa

On 20.06.1991, the truck transported a load from Meghnagar and offloaded it at Ankleshwar

The owner allegedly informed his family via another driver that he intended to proceed to Valia to load tuver dal; however, both the owner and Jayantibhai went missing for six days

Their bodies were eventually discovered in a pipe near a water body in village Parsi, and an FIR (I – C.R. No. 210 of 1991) was registered

The appellants filed Workman (Fatal) Application No. 29 of 1996 before the Workman Compensation Commissioner, claiming Rs. 1 lakh with interest

On 09.04.2002, the Commissioner dismissed the claim, ruling that the claimants failed to prove the death occurred during the course of employment

This First Appeal was subsequently filed challenging that dismissal

1. Whether the deceased Jayantibhai died during the course of his employment as a cleaner

2. Whether the claimants can rely on a legal presumption of employment-related death in the absence of evidence regarding the truck's movements after the initial offloading

The Court applied the Workman Compensation Act (now the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923), which mandates that for compensation to be payable, the accident must arise out of and "in the course of employment"

The Court followed the fundamental principle of evidence law that the burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish the nexus between the death and the employment, affirming that "mere presumption is not a proof"

The Court noted that the specific transportation assignment from Meghnagar to Ankleshwar had been completed once the goods were offloaded at the Ankleshwar GIDC

Regarding the subsequent trip to Valia, the Court found that the appellants relied on hearsay evidence—statements allegedly made to family members—without producing substantive proof or witnesses to confirm a new work assignment

The physical evidence contradicted the claim of continuous employment: the bodies were found 15 km away from the GIDC, the truck was missing from the scene, and there was no evidence of the truck being loaded for a new trip

The Court reasoned that while the deceased was a cleaner, the proximity of the body to the truck's last known location is insufficient without evidence that he was performing a duty at the time of the incident

Consequently, the Court found no error in the Commissioner’s conclusion that the death was not proved to have occurred during the course of employment

The Court held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died during the course of employment, as the chain of employment ended at the offloading point in Ankleshwar and no further employment was evidenced

The registry was directed to return the Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court