JUDGMENT The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if a skilled employee working in night shift dies due to heart attack, whether the employer is liable to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. The facts of the case are as hereunder: The respondents lodged a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, in WC/FC/CR.10/2002 claiming compensation on the ground that the first claimant being the widow and the remaining claimants being the children of deceased Antony Cruz, who was an employee of the appellant are entitled to claim compensation on account of the sudden death of Antony Cruz during the course of employment in night shift on 24-4-2001. 3. It is not in dispute that Antony Cruz has joined the appellant establishment on 1-10-1978 as Helper B and thereafter he was promoted as Group E and he was discharging his duties on the night of 24-4-2001, during which period, he developed chest pain, as a -result of which he was shifted to the appellant's Hospital. While shifting to the Hospital, he died in the Ambulance itself and thereafter, the Doctor declared him as dead in the Hospital. 4. The appellant filed objections stating that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation since heart attack was not on account of the stress or strain during working hours. It was further contended that the deceased was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes and he also had other ailments for which he was taking treatment at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, it was contended by the appellant that the death of Antony Cruz was not an account of stress and strain during the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, considering the evidence let-in by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased while discharging his duties during night hours has developed chest pain which resulted in his death. Therefore, it was held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The judgment and order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is called in question in this appeal. 5. Therefore, it was held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The judgment and order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is called in question in this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant re-iterating the grounds urged before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyothi Ademma v Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another, contends that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation, if a person dies on account of heart attack while discharging his duties. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes. It is also not in dispute that he was a skilled employee and was supposed to work on all three shifts. It is not in dispute that a person who is suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes was directed to work during night hours, without sleep. Naturally, there will be stress on his body and mind, which would have developed the chest pain. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the developing of chest pain by the deceased while discharging his duty during night hours is only on account of stress and strain during the course of his employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma, on facts, has held that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off. Therefore, their Lordships have taken a view that in such circumstances, the heart attack caused to the employee could not be attributed to the nature of job. But in the instant case, admittedly, deceased was a skilled worker and was required to work on the machine throughout the night. Therefore, if he has developed chest pain on account of the stress and strain, we are of the opinion that it is only due to the job strain, which resulted in the death of Antony Cruz. In the circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. When the deceased has developed chest pain due to stress and strain while discharging the duties during night hours, we are of the opinion that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Commissioner is justified in awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which calls for our interference. 7. When the deceased has developed chest pain due to stress and strain while discharging the duties during night hours, we are of the opinion that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Commissioner is justified in awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which calls for our interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed the deceased was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes and he also had other ailments for which he was taking treatment at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, it was contended by the appellant that the death of Antony Cruz was not an account of stress and strain during the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, considering the evidence let-in by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased while discharging his duties during night hours has developed chest pain which resulted in his death. Therefore, it was held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The judgment and order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is called in question in this appeal.