BANERJEA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Shipping corporation of India Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 26. 3. 2001 in Claim case No. 120 of 1992 passed by the learned commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, awarding the sum of rs. 3,22,916 as compensation. The workman died of an accident in the course of employment. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the workman who was a seaman and who was on duty in the vessel M. V. 'hargobind' on 25. 3. 1990 died. Later it was opined that he died because of myocardial infarction. The claimant in the application for compensation claimed a sum of Rs. 3,22,916 as per the National maritime Board Agreement dated 1. 4. 1990. It was specifically pleaded in para 3 of the said application that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs. 6,180 at the time of his death and his age was 30 years. In para 3 of the written statement while dealing with para 3 of the application such rate of monthly wages of the deceased was admitted although the age was denied. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH, the appellant before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner clearly admitted that the said seaman died in course of his employment while employed in the said ship, denied that such death was caused because of any accident or there was any employment injury and claimed that such death was due to the natural cause as it was found that the seaman died because of myocardial infarction. ( 4 ) A purported wage-sheet was also produced by the appellant before the Workmen's Compensation Court being Exh. 'c' on the basis of which it was claimed that the total wages of the deceased were rs. 2,493. ( 5 ) IT was also contended by the appellant that National Maritime Board Agreement of the year 1988 will apply and not of the year 1990. The learned Commissioner after considering all aspects of the matter held that due to stress and strain of the workman rated as seaman at ship died of myocardial infarction, it was an accidental death and the claimant is entitled to compensation. The learned Commissioner also rejected the monthly wages which were sought to be shown by Exh. The learned Commissioner after considering all aspects of the matter held that due to stress and strain of the workman rated as seaman at ship died of myocardial infarction, it was an accidental death and the claimant is entitled to compensation. The learned Commissioner also rejected the monthly wages which were sought to be shown by Exh. 'c', relying on the admission of the appellant in his written statement before the Workmen's compensation Court that the monthly wages at the relevant point of time were rs. 6,180. The learned Commissioner also held that the 1990 National Maritime Board agreement will apply. ( 6 ) AFTER considering the respective submissions of the parties and the entire material on record we are of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award under the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 7 ) UNDER the provisions of the Workmen 's compensation Act, an appeal from such judgment and award before the High court will lie only on substantial question of law. It, however, appears to us that the ground on which the impugned judgment and award is sought to be assailed by the appellant is mostly on question of fact and not on substantial question of law. ( 8 ) THE impugned judgment and award is sought to be assailed by the appellant even on the ground that the learned commissioner did not decide the amount of wage correctly disregarding Exh. 'c', that is the aforesaid wage-sheet. ( 9 ) BUT as pointed out hereinbefore the specific pleading of the appellant in para 3 of the application that the monthly wages of the deceased amounted to Rs. 6,180 was admitted by the appellant in its written statement before the Workmen's Compensation Court and the learned Judge relied on such admission rather than the aforesaid Exh. 'c' and came to a finding that his monthly wages were Rs. 6,180. Learned commissioner came to such a finding on fact. That apart it appears to us Exh. 'c' is not at all the wage-sheet of the seaman as alleged. It will appear from Exh. 'c' and came to a finding that his monthly wages were Rs. 6,180. Learned commissioner came to such a finding on fact. That apart it appears to us Exh. 'c' is not at all the wage-sheet of the seaman as alleged. It will appear from Exh. 'c' itself that the same is a calculation made by the appellant itself for the purposes of assessment of compensation and there it was alleged that the total wages for the purpose of compensation as per clause 101 (c) of the National Maritime Board Agreement, 1988, was Rs. 2,493. The actual salary sheet or the last pay certificate was never produced before the said court. That apart such calculation was made on the basis of minimum rate on the basic wages, subsistence allowances, leave pay, etc. , to which the seaman would have been entitled but not the actual amount which he was drawing as total wages including different kinds of allowances. Such Exh. 'c' not being the original salary sheet or last pay certificate at all reflecting what is the actual wage which was earned at the relevant point of time, no wrong has been committed by the learned Commissioner in relying on the aforesaid admission of the appellant as to the monthly wages of the seaman concerned. ( 10 ) WE also did not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that as the seaman died because of myocardial infarction, he died a natural death and it cannot be said that he died because of an employment injury or accident in course of his employment. ( 11 ) NO seaman can be employed in a ship making sea-voyage unless he possesses a continuous discharge certificate and under the Continuous Discharge Certificate Rules no seaman can be employed in a ship making such sea-voyage unless he is found by a doctor physically fit to undergo such sea-voyage. Admittedly, the concerned seaman was engaged in the concerned ship having been found medically, physically fit to undergo such sea-voyage. Such precaution is taken obviously for the reasons unless a person is physically fit, is unable to undergo a sea-voyage the same being a strenuous one. There is no evidence that the seaman before his death suffered from any disease and admittedly he was fit. Such precaution is taken obviously for the reasons unless a person is physically fit, is unable to undergo a sea-voyage the same being a strenuous one. There is no evidence that the seaman before his death suffered from any disease and admittedly he was fit. His death, therefore, because of such myocardial infarction (heart attack)was obviously because of stress and strain of his daily work in his employment. ( 12 ) IT has been contended that there was no evidence that he died because of stress and strain of work. We are, however, of the view that the learned Commissioner rightly drew such legal inference which is quite permissible, since when admittedly the seaman was employed he was physically and medically fit to undergo sea-voyage which is not disputed. ( 13 ) THAT apart, it appears to us that the death of seaman was never properly diagnosed. ( 14 ) ADMITTEDLY, he died in the ship when on duty on 25. 3. 1990 and the death certificate was given by the Port Health officer of National Maritime Board when the ship reached there three days after, i. e. , on 28. 3. 1990. In the certificate 'myocardial infarction' has been mentioned as the probable cause of death and without making any post-mortem. No certificate of death was issued by any doctor of the ship itself, probably because the ship had no doctor. As it appears from 'a' which is a certified copy of entry in the logbook that even after the seaman was found lying in the toilet and no pulse was felt, hours together over the wireless, medical help was sought from different ships and ports. ( 15 ) IT will appear from Exh. 'c' that the death certification was given by the Port health Officer of New Mangalore Port on 28. 3. 1990 that is three days after the death and there is nothing to show that postmortem examination was made. ( 16 ) THE contention of the appellant, therefore, that such death was a natural one and, therefore, no compensation is payable is an unfortunate attempt on their part to avoid liability of compensation by passing of the death as a natural one. ( 17 ) WE are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. ( 16 ) THE contention of the appellant, therefore, that such death was a natural one and, therefore, no compensation is payable is an unfortunate attempt on their part to avoid liability of compensation by passing of the death as a natural one. ( 17 ) WE are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the learned Commissioner erroneously calculated the compensation on the basis of the National Maritime Board agreement in the year 1990 which came into effect from 1. 4. 1990 but as the death occurred prior thereto, the 1988 agreement should have been applied the result of which would have been that lesser amount of compensation was payable. ( 18 ) IT appears to us that the learned commissioner has rightly referred to the national Maritime Board Agreement of 1990 for the purpose of making assessment of compensation. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the accident took place when 1990 agreement was not entered into by the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the date of the accident will be the relevant date for the purpose of assessment of compensation. ( 19 ) A book which has been produced before this court by the parties contained the summary of agreement entered into on various aspects of the matter. It will appear from section 101 of the said agreement that the same is an agreement relating to the death and disablement compensation and although the same was entered into on 1. 4. 1990, the agreement is effective from 1. 4. 1980 for the purpose of settlement of the claims in respect of death and disablement compensation. Section 101 of the said agreement makes it absolutely clear that the same is effective from 1. 4. 1980. ( 20 ) UNDER such circumstances, even if death of the deceased occurred in March, 1990, i. e. , before the said agreement was entered into before 1. 4. 1990 in view of the aforesaid section 101 in the matter of settlement of death and disablement compensation such agreement will be effective from 1. 4. 1980. ( 21 ) REFERRING to the said Schedule of section 101 of the said agreement it appears to us that when the monthly wagesof the seaman were Rs. 4. 1990 in view of the aforesaid section 101 in the matter of settlement of death and disablement compensation such agreement will be effective from 1. 4. 1980. ( 21 ) REFERRING to the said Schedule of section 101 of the said agreement it appears to us that when the monthly wagesof the seaman were Rs. 5,101 and above, the amount of compensation payable in case of death is Rs. 3,22,916. The learned commissioner rightly calculated the said compensation amount of Rs. 3,22,916. ( 22 ) MR. Bhattacharya also tried to contend that even from the said book it will appear although the said Schedule indicated amount of compensation to be paid, the method how it is to be calculated is indicated in the next page (page No. 37) of the said book which was not applied by the learned Commissioner. ( 23 ) WE are unable to accept such contention of Mr. Bhattacharya. Section 101 (clause A) clearly laid down that in respect of the death or personal injury resulting in permanent incapacity arising out of and in course of service on articles but not being death or injury caused by the rating's own wilful act or default or misbehaviour, the company shall pay compensation as under and below the same the aforesaid Schedule has been appended indicating the amount of compensation which will be payable in case of death. The calculation which has been referred to by Mr. Bhattacharya in the next page, it will appear therefrom, will apply only when death or injury results from and is directly attributable to the carriage of certain types of cargo, radio-active material, explosives, etc. Such method of calculation, therefore, would be applicable only in the case of ships carrying certain types of cargo. Admittedly, the ship in which the concerned seaman was employed was not such kind of ship. That apart it is clearly stated there that the amount in the scale at (1) above, i. e. , aforesaid Schedule of compensation which is appended below under section 101 (a), shall be increased by the amount as calculated thereunder. The calculation, therefore, which Mr. Bhattacharya is referring to, will be applicable only in the case of ships carrying types of cargo referred to therein and such amount will be payable in addition to the amount which is indicated in the aforesaid Schedule under section 101 (a ). The calculation, therefore, which Mr. Bhattacharya is referring to, will be applicable only in the case of ships carrying types of cargo referred to therein and such amount will be payable in addition to the amount which is indicated in the aforesaid Schedule under section 101 (a ). ( 24 ) SUCH a calculation referred to therefore by Mr. Bhattacharya has no manner of application in the instant case. ( 25 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at 200 G. M. S. ( 26 ) THE appellant is now directed to deposit the entire awarded amount before the Workmen's Compensation Court if not already deposited together with 12 per cent interest on the aforesaid sum from the date of the application and the costs assessed by us within six weeks from the date and the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid sum without furnishing any security. ( 27 ) LET urgent xerox certified copy of this order be made available expeditiously to the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Let the trial court records be sent down forthwith. Malay Kumar Basu, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.