ORDER :

This writ petition raises a very interesting question. A construction worker is attacked by some strangers in a construction site. The worker succumbs to the injury. A claim petition is filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, under the provisions of The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The question that begs consideration is whether such an incident could be termed as ‘accident’ and brought under the purview of the Act, and whether the landlord could be held liable to pay compensation for the death of the worker?

2. A brief narration of the incident would be necessary, before delving into the question raised for consideration. On 01.09.2010, around 1.15 p.m., Shivalingaiah, who was working and taking shelter in the construction site, finished his work and left the workplace along with his colleague Hanumanthu. At that point of time, two strangers, later identified as Suresha and Nagaraja, sought to extract money from Shivalingaiah. When Shivalingaiah resisted, the strangers attacked him with cement hollow blocks and Shivalingaiah sustained multiple injuries over his body. He later succumbed to the injury.

3. The wife and children of Shivalingaiah i.e, the respondents herein filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Act, seeking Rs.20,00,000/as compensation from the landlord of the construction site, who is the petitioner herein. It was contended before the Tribunal that Shivalingaiah was working for about four months prior to the incident as coolie and was paid Rs.500/per day. After narrating the incident, it was contended that the death of Shivalingaiah was caused during the course of employment and therefore the landlord is liable to pay the compensation. In the written statement, the petitioner herein strongly resisted the claim petition and contended that at any rate, the death of Shivalingaiah cannot be termed as death, caused during the course of employment. The Tribunal having raised an issue whether the claimants established that the death occurred due to accident arising out of and in the course of employment and whether the employer is liable to pay compensation under the Act, simply answers the questions in the affirmative, without assigning any reasons. The claim petition was allowed and compensation of Rs.7,13,960/along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 01.10.2010, till date of payment, was awarded to the claimants and the petitioner herein was directed to pay the compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 3 of the Act provides that an employer is liable to pay compensation if personal injury is caused to an employee, by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment. It is submitted that though the claim petition was resisted on the ground that Shivalingaiah was attacked by some strangers, unconnected with the landlord and it cannot be construed as an ‘accident’ arising out of and in the course of his employment, the Tribunal clearly erred in allowing the claim petition, even without assigning reasons for holding that the death of Shivalingaiah was an accident arising out of the course of employment.

5. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, reported in 1969 (2) SCC 607. Further, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the evidence on record would substantiate that the incident has occurred not because of anything connected to the workplace or anything to do with the employer. In this regard, on factual aspects, it was pointed out that the two strangers attacked Shivalingaiah alone. They did not attack the watchman who was present at the workplace; no theft has taken place; the attackers are not coworkers; the attackers may have had personal reason to attack Shivalingaiah. All these aspects would cumulatively evidence t