An accident arises out of and in the course of employment if it has a causal connection with the employee's employment and is due to a risk incidental to the employment.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act raises a question as to whether an employee who had suffered injury while travelling in a train at the hands of some hooligans is entitled to compensation from the employer under the Act.

( 2 ) THE claimant-respondent was working as a Territory Supervisor and was looking after the sales of the products of the appellant-company. He was directed to attend a conference at Puri on June 27, 1998. The said conference was organised by the appellant. The claimant-respondent along with his other colleagues left Calcutta by Jagannath Express for Puri in the night of June 26, 1998 to attend the conference but during the journey he was assaulted and thrown out of the Railway compartment as a result whereof he sustained multiple injuries including head injury. The petitioner as a result of such injuries became permanently physically disabled. He was only 23 years old at the relevant time and his monthly salary was Rs. 2337/- at the time of accident.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal below upon taking into consideration the materials on record allowed the application filed under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act holding that the respondent was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 52,788/ as compensation for his 20% loss of earning capacity from the Opposite Party.

( 4 ) BEFORE us Mr. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has in support of this appeal raised two questions, (1) the respondent was not a workman, and (2) even if he was a workman, the accident did not occur in course of employment and the learned counsel, has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corpn. v. Francis De Costa.

( 5 ) MR. Arunava Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that as the petitioner was directed to attend the conference which was organised by the appellant and in view of the nature of job undertaken by him, as he was to work outside the factory premises, he is entitled to compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Re. contention No. 1 : section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, reads thus:"section 2- (1) In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (a ). . . . . (n) 'workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is- (i ). . . . . (ii) employed (***) (****) in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of (the Armed Forces of the Union) (***) and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them".

( 6 ) THE Schedule II appended to the Act embraces within its fold such employees who also look after sales. Thus, it is futile to contend that the respondent was not a workman. The said question is, therefore, answered in favour of the respondent. Re. Contention No. 2:

( 7 ) THE fact that the petitioner was a Sales Supervisor and for the purpose of discharging his duties he was required to travel is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the respondent was travelling in a train pursuant to a direction issued to him in this regard by the authorities of the appellant itself to attend a conference. Section 3 of the said Act imposes liability on the employer if a personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in course of his employment.

( 8 ) THE interpretation of the words "arising out of and in course of employment" has not been found to be easy by the Courts. See Armstrong Withworth and Co. v. Redford, 1920 AC 757 at 780 and Mcculhum v.