Dixit, J.

(1) This appeal arises from an application for compensation made by the respondent under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, and the question which it seeks to raise is whether the respondents husband received personal injury by accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment. The facts of the ease in which the question arises are simple.

(2) One Vinayak Yenku, a carpenter, was employed in a workshop situate at Alexandra Dock, Bombay, and belonging to the appellant. In the workshop he was given a table and a cupboard. There were other workmen besides Vinayak, and their tables were in line with one another. On May 13, 1950, which is the date of the accident. Vinayak went to the workshop and sat at the table assigned to him to do the work which was that of preparing a frame for a trolley. While there, a bomb exploded, as a result of which Vinayak received injuries. Ho was subsequently removed to the St. Georges Hospital, where he died on the night of the same day.

(3) The respondent, who is the widow of the deceased Vinayak, made the present application on June 22, 1950, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,500. The appellant filed a written statement, in which two contentions were taken. It was contended, firstly, that Vinayak was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, and that the accident did not arise out of, and in the course of, his employment.

(4) Upon the application evidence was led before the Commissioner, and two persons were examined. One of them was an Inspector of Police, who visited the place of the incident after the explosion, and a clerk by name Bento in the Hamalage workshop at the Alexandra Dock. At the trial the appellant gave UP the contention that Vinayak was not a workman, and upon the second contention the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the accident arose out of, and in the course of, Vinnyaks employment. Consequently, he allowed the application and gave the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,522. From the order made upon the application, the original opponent has come up in appeal.

(5) Mr. Petigara, who appears for the opponent, contends that in the lower Court the question whether or not Vinayak was a workman was wrongly given up. The contention is based upon Section 2(1) (n), clause (ii), read with the second schedule. According to the schedule, it is necessary that there must be ten or more persons employed on any one day of the preceding twelve months. The clerk who gave evidence stated that there were in all nine workmen; that is, there were four carpenters, one fitter, two coolies, one foreman and himself. In cross-examination ho admitted that coolies were kept to help the carpenters in their work when necessary. It seems to me, therefore, that there was evidence before the learned Commissioner showing that more than nine persons were employed in the workshop, and in view of this evidence it was not disputed before the learned Commissioner that the deceased was a workman within the moaning of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, this contention fails.

(6) The second contention is whether it is proved that personal injury was caused to Vinayak by accident arising out of, and in the course of his employment. It is apparent that two conditions are required to be satisfied, that is, (1) personal injury must be caused to a workman by accident arising out of his employment, and (2) it must be caused to him in the course of his employment. As regards the second of the two requirements, there is no dispute that Vinayak received personal injury as a result of an accident, which took place in the course of his employment. The question, however, remains whether it can be said that persona! injury was caused to Vinayak by accident arising out of his employment. The expression "in the course of his employment" suggests the point of time; that is to say, the injury must be caused by accident taking place in the course of the employment; that is, during the currency