JUDGMENT : The appellants herein are the widow and children of the deceased, who was working as a truck driver with respondent No.1 company. The husband of the appellant No.1 unfortunately died on 27/05/2015, when he suffered massive heart attack. The appellants moved an application under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation from respondent No.1, on the basis that husband of the appellant No.1 had died due to personal injury that he suffered in the course of his employment with the respondent No.1. The claim made by the appellants was opposed by the respondents. The parties led evidence in support of their respective stands and by the Judgment and order dated 23/01/2018, the Commissioner under the said Act / Labour Court, Amravati, rejected the application preferred by the appellants, primarily on the ground that the evidence given by the appellant No.1, to the effect that her husband suffered fatal heart attack due to extremely strenuous work conditions was not even pleaded in the application and that there was lack of material on record to support the aforesaid claim made on behalf of the appellants. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal in which notice for final disposal was issued on 22/01/2019, on the following substantial question of law : “In the light of the pleadings in paragraph 1 of the application for grant of compensation indicating the cause of uneasiness of the victim, whether the learned Commissioner was legally correct in observing that such plea had not been pleaded in the claim petition warranting dismissal of the petition?” 3. Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below had taken a very technical view in the matter and that the aforesaid Act being a beneficial legislation, the Court ought to have appreciated the pleadings and evidence in the proper perspective. It was claimed that a proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record would indicate that evidence given by the appellant No.1 was nothing but an elaboration of the reasons which led to the death of her husband during the course of his employment. It was submitted that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the application in the present case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. It was submitted that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the application in the present case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.J. Gilda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that no error was committed by the Court below if the relevant provisions of the said Act were read with the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, 2007 (11) SCC 668 . It was submitted that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment, the pleadings in the present case were deficient and even evidence of the appellant No.1 was not sufficient to support the claim made in the application before the Court below and, therefore, the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 5. In the present case, the relevant pleadings from the application moved on behalf of the appellants read as follows : “1) That on dated 27.05.2015 the deceased namely Balu Suryabhan Saut was parked Tata Truck No. MH 27 X6271 in a que in front of Gas Plant Dhanaj Khurd for filing the Gas in the Cylinder of the Truck. Thereafter, after some time the said truck entered into the plant and after filing the Gas in the cylinder of the truck came out of the Gas Plant at about 6.15 p.m. Thereafter the driver of the truck i.e. deceased feeling uneasy and therefore deceased was immediately shifted to the nearest Hospital at PHC Kamargaon and examination by M.O. P.H.C. Kamargaon to the deceased, he declared him to be dead. (2) On the date, day and time of the incident, the deceased was working as a Driver on Truck No. MH 27 X6271 under the instruction and employment of the non applicant no.1, i.e. the owner of the said truck. The said truck was insured with non-applicant no.2 at the relevant time. The incident occurred during the course of employment therefore, the non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation u/s 22 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 to the applicants.” 6. The said truck was insured with non-applicant no.2 at the relevant time. The incident occurred during the course of employment therefore, the non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation u/s 22 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 to the applicants.” 6. In the evidence, the appellant No.1 specifically submitted that the victim in the present case was put under strain because he had returned from duty late in the night before the fateful day and that he was required to again report for duty early in the morning on the day on which the incident took place. It was stated that due to strenuous work conditions the victim felt uneasy, suffered a massive heart attack and died. 7. The Court below in the impugned Judgment and order found that the statement made in the evidence by the appellant No.1 could not be corelated to any such pleadings made in the application filed on behalf of the applicants under the provisions of the said Act. 8. In order to appreciate as to whether the conclusions rendered by the Court below are appropriate, it would be necessary to refer the relevant provision of the Act and position of law in respect thereof. The relevant portion of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act reads as follows : “3. Employer' s liability for compensation. (1) If personal injury is caused to a [employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the [employee] for a period exceeding [three] days; (b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death [or permanent total disablement], caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to (i) the [employee] having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the [employee] to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of [employees], or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the [employee] of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of [employees].” 9. In the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another (supra), the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with in detail with regard to the nature of the pleadings necessary in such cases and the ingredients necessary for concluding in favour of the claimants when the death of the victim occurs in circumstances similar to those that have arisen in the present case. In the said case, which was for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the employee had died because of cardiac arrest and similar claim was raised by the claimants therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in the said Judgment that there has to be pleading and legal evidence placed on record by the claimants to support such case where the claim is based on an assertion that the death of the victim has occurred due to reason of strain at the work place and nature of duties imposed upon the victim and also nature of severity of such work conditions. It has been laid down that if there is absence of such pleadings and legal evidence in support of such aspects, the statutory Authority would commit a jurisdictional error by entertaining an application and granting compensation under the provisions of the said Act. The relevant discussion is found in paragraphs No.16 to 29 of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and principles concerning the essential ingredients for granting claim in such circumstances, have been elaborated in paragraph 22 thereof. The said paragraph No.22 reads as follows : “22. There are large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn. in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the test attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The principles are : (1) There must a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. The principles are : (1) There must a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case.” 10. Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present case, it would be evident that the pleadings in the application moved on behalf of the appellants herein in the form of paragraphs of the application quoted above, do appear to be deficient. Apart from this, in the evidence led down on behalf of the appellants, there is a mere statement made by the appellant No.1 that the deceased was working till late in the night before the fateful day and that he was required to report early on the day on which the incident took place. But, apart from that the aforesaid evidence is in the absence of adequate pleadings, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 invited attention of this Court to Exh.16, which is Merg Report recorded at the behest of the nephew of the deceased on the date of the incident. It is stated in the said report that the deceased had reported on duty at 10.30 a.m. and that he was eventually required to drive the truck in question at 4.15 p.m. in the gas plant and when the truck was driven by him out of the gas plant in the evening, he felt uneasy and suffered massive heart attack. This nephew of the deceased was incidentally not examined, but, the contents of Merg Report do give an indication as to the nature of the activities undertaken by the deceased on the fateful day. Such material does not give any support to the claim made on behalf of the appellant No.1 or the evidence placed before the Court below. In the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Such material does not give any support to the claim made on behalf of the appellant No.1 or the evidence placed before the Court below. In the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another (supra), emphasis has also been placed on the necessity to examine the persons, who would have knowledge as to the work conditions in the work place of the deceased and also on examination of the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem. In the present case, admittedly, no such witnesses were examined, thereby further weakening of the case of the appellants. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that no error can be attributed to the Court below in passing the impugned Judgment and order. Accordingly, the question framed by this Court for consideration is answered in the affirmative and the appeal is dismissed.