Smt. Sundarbai was the widow of a workman employed at the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur. Her husband was engaged in the factory's operations, which involved regular and strenuous physical labour. While performing

Smt. Sundarbai was the widow of a workman employed at the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur. Her husband was engaged in the factory's operations, which involved regular and strenuous physical labour. While performing his duties in the course of employment, he suddenly collapsed and later died. The cause of death was linked to a heart attack, which she contended was the result of strain and stress arising from his employment. Sundarbai applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming that her husband's death amounted to an "accident arising out of and in the course of employment." The employer, the Ordnance Factory management, resisted the claim on the ground that the workman's death was due to a natural disease, namely heart failure, and not an accident. They argued that unless there was some untoward mishap or unexpected event traceable to the nature of work, the incident could not be treated as an "accident" under the Act. Therefore, they maintained that the claim for compensation was not maintainable. The matter eventually reached the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The principal issue before the High Court was whether the death of Sundarbai's husband due to heart failure while performing his ordinary duties in the factory could be treated as an "accident" within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Court had to examine whether there must be a direct and immediate causal link between the work and the injury, or whether even the ordinary strain of work, if it accelerated or aggravated a pre-existing condition, would be sufficient to establish such connection. Another issue was how to differentiate between "injury" caused by accident and death resulting from natural disease not connected with employment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favour of Smt. Sundarbai, clarifying the scope of the expressions "accident" and "injury" under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court held that an "accident" is not limited to external mishaps, falls, or injuries caused by violent occurrences. Instead, it can also include cases where the ordinary strain of ordinary work leads to or accelerates a physical breakdown, such as heart failure, provided there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. The Court drew a distinction between "injury" and "accident" an injury is the physical harm or medical condition suffered by the workman, whereas an accident is the untoward event in the course of employment that causes or accelerates such injury. If a workman, while performing his regular duties, suffers from a heart attack and it is shown that the strain of employment contributed to or hastened the fatal result, then such death can be said to arise "out of and in the course of employment." The fact that the employee may have had a pre-existing heart condition was not material if the employment strain accelerated the injury. Applying this principle, the Court held that Sundarbai's husband died because the stress and strain of his ordinary duties had accelerated his heart failure, and thus the death was an "accident" connected with his employment. Consequently, the widow was entitled to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act. In the background of the given information, answer the following questions: How did the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sundarbai's case interpret the concept of "accident" under the Employees' Compensation Act and why was this interpretation significant ?