( 1 ) (APPEAL Under Section 30 (a) of W. C. Act, against the order/decree in W. C. no. :69 of 1999 dated 20/9/2001 on the file of the court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad.) this C. M. A. is filed under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 20-09-2001 by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-l, in W. C. No. 69 of 1999. The 1st respondent herein presented the claim before the Commissioner alleging that her husband, by name, Chittari was employed as Foreman with the 2nd respondent, and that on 12-3-1999, when he was returning after completion of duties, meet with an accident at Balanagar, and died as a result of the injuries. She claimed compensation of Rs. 5,55,910/-, under the provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent and the appellant herein opposed the claim. According to them, the accident did not take place during the course of employment and thereby, they are not liable. The 1st respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked on her behalf. The 2nd respondent herein was examined as RW-1 and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, RW-2 was examined and Exs. B-4 was marked. On a consideration of the respective pleas of the parties, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,39,708/ -.

( 3 ) SRI Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the death of the workman took place after the office hours, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that it occurred during the course of employment. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation and another v. Francis De Costa and another (1996) 6 SCC 1 learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent was not entitled to be paid any compensation.

( 4 ) THOUGH respondents 1 and 2 were served with notices, they have not chosen to enter appearance. On the request made by this Court, Sri. G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel, assisted the Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel submits that though the employment of a worker, on a particular day, commences and ends at a particular point of time, there are instances where a notional extension can be given to it, depending on the attendant circumstances. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in B. E. S. T. Undertaking v. Mrs. Agnes AIR 1964 SC 193 learned counsel submits that even after being relieved from duties, an employee can still be said to be in employment, while traveling in a transport, provided by an undertaking, or if he is yet to cross the premises.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the husband of the 1st respondent was employed as Foreman with the 2nd respondent. He died on 12-03-1999, while returning to his home, after the duty hours. Under Section 3 of the Act, an employer becomes liable to pay compensation for the injury, or death caused to a workman, by accident arising out of, and in the course of his employment. In this case, the 1st facet, namely accident arising out of employment can be safely be ruled out. It has only to be seen as to whether the death occurred during the course of employment. It is true that in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation and another v. Francis De Costa and another (1 supra), Supreme Court held that if an employee meets with an accident while going to his place of employment, before he joins duty, the employer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja AIR 1958 SC 881 and B. E. S. T. Undertaking v. Mrs. Agnes (2 supra), was discussed therein.

( 6 ) A perusal of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court so far reveals that though as a broad principle it was held that the employment of a workman does not commence until he reaches the place of employment,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document