Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation) Tirunelveli dated 25.9.1987. 2. The applicants are the sons of one Chinnasamy Thevar who was employed under the opposite Party as a loadman in harbour at Tuticorin. On 17.12.1985, during the course of his employment, he fell down on account of the crane sling hitting him and became unconscious. He was admitted in. the private hospital of one Rajan and discharged on 4.4.1986. He has reported to duty on 5.4.1986. Subsequently, he has taken treatment from 7.4.1986 to 13.4.1986 under one Doctor Madhiprakasam. He was again admitted in the hospital of Rajan on 14.4.1986 and then in the Government Hospital on 30.4.1986. On 4.5.1986, he died. Deceased Chinnasamy was aged 51 years drawing an income of Rs. 950/- per month. Hence, the claim is made for Rs. 56.875/-. 3. The opposite Party in his counter has stated that the death of Chinnasamy was not on account of the accident that took place on 17.12.1985 and there was no accident as alliged and he was admitted in the Hospital only since he complained of chest pain. He was discharged from the Hospital after treatment. Subsequently, he joined duty also and later died. Therefore, the death of Chinnasamy was not on account of any accident during the course of his employment. 4. On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner and he had found the death of Chinnasamy was on account of the accident which occurred on 17.12.1985 during the course of his employment and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,887.50. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the Opposite Party has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the deceased Chinnasamy was suffering from liver trouble and he was also a chronic patient of tuberculosis and the death was a natural death on account of his ailments and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is liable to be set aside. It must be noted that on 17-12-1985, the sling of the crane hit the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, and became unconscious. On the same day, he was also admitted in the Hospital where the employees of the respondent are usually given treatment and he was discharged only on 1-4-1986, after a prolonged treatment. It must be noted that on 17-12-1985, the sling of the crane hit the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, and became unconscious. On the same day, he was also admitted in the Hospital where the employees of the respondent are usually given treatment and he was discharged only on 1-4-1986, after a prolonged treatment. It is also to be noted that there were no external or internal injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident that took place on 17-12-1985. He found fit for duty and therefore he has reported for duty on 5-4-1986. After working for about 10 days, he again got himself admitted in the Hospital on 14-4-1986 and ultimately he died on 4-5-1986. 7. The Commissioner of Workmens Compensation has held that the death was due to the accident that took place on 17-12-1985. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that there was no nexus between the accident that had happened on 17-12-1985 and the death of Chinnasamy on 4-5-1986 and it was only on account of the disease he was suffering, he died in the hospital. That the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis is not in dispute. The death of the deceased was after five months of the accident. There was no external or internal injuries found on the person of the deceased and he was found fit for duty on 5-4-1986. It is now for us to decide whether the death of Chinnasamy was on account of the accident during the course of his employment. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation viz. Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) Tmt. Meenalochini would argue that when the workmen fell down on the ground and became unconscious on the date of the accident, it cannot be stated that there was no nexus between the death and the accident. She would also argue that when the accidental injury results in death and no other intervening factor is there, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has to be confirmed. There cannot be two opinions that if the accident had caused any injury resulting in death and there are no other intervening factors, the employer has to be made liable on the ground that the death was during the course of the employment of the employee. There cannot be two opinions that if the accident had caused any injury resulting in death and there are no other intervening factors, the employer has to be made liable on the ground that the death was during the course of the employment of the employee. But in the present case, there were no injuries to the workman and the death was nearly is an intervening factor viz. the workman was suffering from tuberclosis. To come under the Act to enable the legal representatives of the employee to get compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, it must be shown that the accident took place during the course of the employment and injury caused during the employment has resulted in death. The burden of proof rests upon the workmen to show that the accident arose out of the employment as well as in the course of employment. In the present case, the applicant was able to prove that the accident arose out of employment and in the course of employment. But, it cannot be stated that the death was on account of the said accident, in view of the intervening factor of the deceased namely the employee was suffering from tuberclosis and the intervening period of the accident and the death. There is no evidence that the employer was aware of the sickness from which the employee was suffering and in spite of it, he was compelled to work in such a way that the accident was inevitable. 9. To apply Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, it must be shown that there was a direct connection between the accident and the death. This aspect is lacking in the present case. The employee is aged 51 years suffering from the dreadful disease of tuberclosis and he was found fit for duty after treatment given to him in the hospital and the death had ensued after five months of the accident. In the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that the death occurred on account of the accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. 10. In the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that the death occurred on account of the accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) has relied upon the decision reported in Parwati Devi v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1971 A.C.J. 451), to argue that when a workman who was suffering from T.B. of lungs, he slipped while on duty resulting in rupture of the veins of lungs, dies, his employer is liable. In the present case, the deceased was suffering from tuberclosis, as in the reported case. He also fell down after the accident, but, after taking treatment that he was taking treatment and found fit for employment and joined duty is not in dispute. The accident therefore cannot be said to be the cause of the death. In the above circumstances. I am of opinion that the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation awarding compensation to the petitioners cannot be sustainable and it has to be set aside. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. Tirunelveli. No costs.