The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the accident arose out of the employment, but once the applicant has established that the deceased was at a particular place and he was there because he had to be there by reason of his employment, and he further establishes that because he was there he met with an accident, he has discharged the burden which the law places upon him.

CHAGLA, C.J.:- This is a rather unusual case arising under the Workmens Compensation Act. The facts briefly are that the deceased was a mukadam employed in the Central Railway at Kurla station and he lived in the railway quarters adjoining the Kurla railway station. It was found as a fact that the only access for the deceased from his quarters to the Kurla railway station was through the compound of the railway quarters. On 20-12-1952, the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty and immediately thereafter he was stabbed by some unknown person. It is not disputed by the railway company that the deceased died as a result of an accident, nor is it disputed that the accident arose in the course of his employment.

But what is disputed is that the accident did arise out of the employment of the deceased. The learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and therefore dismissed the claim made by the applicant, who is the widow of the deceased. She has now come in appeal.

2. Now, it is clear that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The authorities have clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to the peril or extends the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril, a causal connection is established between the employment and the accident.

In this particular case what is established is that the employee while in the course of his employment found himself in a spot where he was assaulted and stabbed to death. He was in the place where he was murdered by reason of his employment. He would have been safely in his bed but for the fact that he had to join duty, and he had to pass this spot in order to join his duty. Therefore, the connection between the employment and the accident is established. There is no evidence in this case that the employee in any way added to the peril. There is no evidence that he was stabbed because the assailant wanted to stab him and not anybody else. It was suggested in the evidence that the employee was also a money-lender apart from being a mukadam in the service of the railway company. But the point was not pursued and it was not proved that by reason of his being a money-lender he had any enemies who were likely to fall upon him and do him to death.

Mr. Desai who appears for the railway company has argued that a railway servant was prohibited from doing any other business. But it is not established that by his doing this prohibited business he brought upon himself the peril of being murdered.

3. Our attention has been drawn to several authorities by Mr. Desai, but there are two decisions of this very Court which amply bear out the proposition which we have just set down. There is a reported judgment to which my brother was a party in - Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Yamunabai, AIR 1952 Bom 382 (A). In that case a workman was employed as a carpenter in a workshop along with other wo