JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By means of the present appeal, appellants have challenged the judgement and order dated 10.09.2012 passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation Act, 1923/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Firozabad in W.C. Case No.15 of 1998 whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one S.L. Sharma was working as Sales Executive with the respondent M/s Milton Glass Industries, Girdharganj, Firozabad and he had gone to Indore to collect payment from different parties due to the respondent. It is stated that S.L. Sharma had died during the course of employment as he was traveling on official duty and suffered heart attack during official duty which caused his death. S.L. Sharma was drawing salary of Rs. 8,000/-per month. In the aforesaid backdrop, W.C. Case No. 15 of 1998 was instituted praying for a compensation of Rs. 4,89,888/-. 4. The claim petition was contested by respondent by filing written statement contending therein that deceased was running a firm in the name of Ansuieya Glass Decorators, Firozabad and in connection with the work of aforesaid firm, he used to go out. It was denied that S.L. Sharma was sent by the respondent for collection of payment. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent denied its liability to pay any compensation. 5. The Commissioner framed as many as three issues. Issue No.1 is related to the fact as to whether S.L. Sharma was a workman under the workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1923’) and was under employment of respondent. Issue no.2 is related to the fact as to whether S.L. Sharma had died during the course of employment and cause of his death had any casual connection with his duties. Issue no.3 is related to the quantification of compensation which the appellants are entitled to. 6. On the issue no.1, Commissioner held that deceased was running a firm in the name of Ansuieya Glass Decorators and he got the said firm registered with Sales Tax Department and the money which was recovered from the deceased at the time of his death was given by police with the consent of son of deceased Laxmi Shanker without any dispute to Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari who were owners of different firms. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, Commissioner held that deceased was not an employee of respondent. 7. On the issue no.2, the Commissioner held that cause of death of S.L. Sharma was heart attack and it is evident from the record that deceased was taking medicine for the treatment of his cardio vascular problem, thus, the death of S.L. Sharma cannot be said to have arisen during the course of employment and cause of his death had any casual connection with the duties of the appellant. Since, the finding on issue nos.1 and 2 was returned by the Commissioner against the appellants, consequently it has also returned a finding against the appellants on the issue of quantification of compensation. 8. Challenging the aforesaid finding, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that deceased was employee of respondent and there was sufficient evidence on record which clearly established that deceased was working as Sales Executive with the respondent’s firm and he had gone for the work of respondent to collect payment from different parties to Indore. Thus, there was relationship of employer and employee between deceased and the respondent and further S.L. Sharma had died during the course of employment and the cause of death of S.L. Sharma had connection with the nature of duties performed by the deceased. He submits that the Commissioner has ignored various letters dated 16.05.1997, 06.09.1997, 7.12.1997 and 08.12.1997 written by Rakesh Tiwari, one of the partner of the respondent’s firm, to the different parties stating therein that deceased was Sales Executive of the firm and he was authorized to collect the payment. 9. The further contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the statements of Rakesh Tiwari and Nehru Narang given to the police on 02.07.1998 clearly reveals that they are partners of respondent’s firm and deceased was employed as Sales Executive in the said firm. He submits that statement dated 02.07.1998 of Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari recorded by Yogendra Singh Kushwaha A.S.I., P.S. G.R.P. during police investigation was duly proved by Yogendra Singh Kushwaha, A.S.I. P.S. G.R.P., Firozabad, who in his statement before the Commissioner clearly stated that both the persons Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari stated that deceased was working as Sales Executive in their firm and on their instruction had gone to Indore to collect money. Thus, Commissioner has acted illegally in ignoring the relevant evidence on record while returning a finding on the issue as to whether deceased was employed as Sales Executive with the respondent's firm. He submits that finding of the Commissioner on the issue of employment of deceased with respondent is perverse and against the record and is not sustainable. 10. He further contends that death of S.N. Sharma was not natural which is evident from the postmortem report inasmuch as the cause of death of S.L. Sharma indicated in the postmortem report was cardio-respiratory failure due to suspected poisoning. The relevant part of the postmortem report dated 02.07.1998 is extracted herein below:- “The deceased S.L. Sharma died of cardio-respiratory failure, due to suspected poisoning, the viscera preserved for chemical analysis. The postmortem conducted within 24 hrs. since time of death”. 11. Thus, the submission is that finding of the Commissioner in respect of death of S.L. Sharma that it was natural death is wrong and also based on misreading of evidence. Thus, he submits that from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that necessary ingredients as required under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1923 are present and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get compensation from the respondent. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 13. The two questions which emerges in the present appeal are as under:- (I) Whether the finding of the Commissioner in respect of employment of deceased with respondent is perverse and against the record. (II) Whether the finding of the Commissioner in respect of cause of death of S.L. Sharma being natural is perverse and against the record in view of the postmortem report which reveals that cause of death of S.L. Sharma was not natural. 14. So far as the issue of employment of deceased with respondent is concerned, the son of appellant Laxmi Shanker had appeared before the Commissioner and has categorically stated that deceased was employed as Sales Executive with the respondent and had gone to Indore to collect payment from different parties due to the respondent. 14. So far as the issue of employment of deceased with respondent is concerned, the son of appellant Laxmi Shanker had appeared before the Commissioner and has categorically stated that deceased was employed as Sales Executive with the respondent and had gone to Indore to collect payment from different parties due to the respondent. Another witness of appellants namely, Yogendra Singh Kushwaha, A.S.I. P.S. G.R.P, Firozabad has also appeared before the Commissioner and stated that statements of Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari were recorded by him wherein they have stated that they are the owners of respondent’s firm and deceased was employed as Sales Executive with respondent's firm. He further stated that money which was recovered from the deceased in the form of cash and cheque was also given to the Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari. Thus, it is evident from the statement of Yogendra Singh Kushwaha that Nehru Narang and Rakesh Tiwari have admitted the fact they are the owners of respondent's firm. Further, various letters dated 02.10.1997, 7.12.1997 and 8.12.1997 written by Rakesh Tiwari to the different parties on the letter pad of M/s Milton Glass Industries which have been filed as evidence before the Commissioner and which have not been denied by the respondent clearly reveals that deceased was employed with the respondent. The contents of one of such letter dated 02.10.1997 is extracted herein below:- “M/s Pinky Crockery House Chandigarh. Dear Sirs, Our representative Mr. S.L. Sharma is reaching to you. Please make him our balance payment in cash/draft alongwith your valued order. Thanking you. Yours faithfully. For Milton Glass Industries.” 15. It is further relevant to point out that neither Rakesh Tiwari nor Nehru Narang had appeared before the Commissioner to state that deceased was not employed with them or the letters referred above were not written by Rakesh Tiwari. 16. The respondent has produced one Girish Tiwari as witness before the Commissioner, who was said to be Munim of respondent, and has denied the employment of the deceased with the respondent. In the facts of the present case, the statement of Girish Tiwari cannot be said to be worthy reliance for the reason that Girish Tiwari was the employee of respondent and naturally he would depose in favour of and for the benefit of respondent. 17. In the facts of the present case, the statement of Girish Tiwari cannot be said to be worthy reliance for the reason that Girish Tiwari was the employee of respondent and naturally he would depose in favour of and for the benefit of respondent. 17. The statement of Yogendra Singh Kushwaha wherein he has proved the contents of statement of Rakesh Tiwari and Navrang Nehru recorded by him during investigation and further the letters written by Rakesh Tiwari to different parties authorizing the deceased to collect payment and orders clearly proves that deceased was employed with respondent. 18. It is also established from the various letters written by Rakesh Tiwari to the different parties that deceased had gone to Indore to collect payment from various parties and to take orders on the instruction of the owner of respondent. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the finding of the Commissioner that the deceased was not the employee of respondent is perverse and against the record. This Court also on the basis of letters of Rakesh Tiwari, owner of respondent, holds that deceased had gone to Indore to collect payment and to take orders from various parties for the respondent, thus, deceased has died during the course of employment. 19. Now, coming to the question as to whether the cause of death of deceased has any casual connection with the nature of duties performed by him, in this regard, it is worth noticing that the postmortem report clearly reveals that cause of death of S.L. Sharma was cardio-respiratory failure due to suspected poisoning. Accordingly, it is evident from the record that cause of death of S.L. Sharma was not natural. Thus, it is established on record that S.L. Sharma died during the course of employment due to suspected poisoning which resulted in cardio-respiratory failure of deceased. The Commissioner while recording a finding that deceased had died due to heart attack has ignored the cause of death indicated in the postmortem report and, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that deceased was taking medicine for cardio vascular problem and died due to heart attack which was natural death is not sustainable. 20. For the reasons given above, the question nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of appellants. 20. For the reasons given above, the question nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of appellants. In view of the facts stated above, the concerned Commissioner is directed to decide the issue no.3 in respect of quantification of compensation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 21. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner is set aside.