1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 27th May, 2015 of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.4,23,580/- has been awarded to claimant/respondent.

2. The respondent is the widow of late Laxmi Narayan, who was employed with the appellant as a machine man. On 15th September, 2000, Laxmi Narayan returned back home after completing the duty. At about 8:30 PM, Laxmi Narayan was called back to the factory for some urgent work, whereupon he went back to the factory, where he was murdered by a co-worker, Mohd. Javed Ansari. The Police registered FIR No.682/2000 in which Mohd. Javed Ansari was charge-sheeted. Mohd. Javed Ansari was convicted and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the murder cannot be said to be an accident for compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act. It was further submitted that the murder did not arise out of and during the course of employment of the deceased. However, it was not disputed that the deceased was an employee and was called after duty hours to do some emergent work in the appellant’s factory where he was murdered. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to and relied upon Mackinnon Machenzie v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607, Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1, Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 405, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668, Laxmanrao v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 2015 ACJ 2509 and Mewar Textile Mills v. Kushali Bai, (1960) II LLJ 369.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of the hearing that the murder of Laxmi Narayan was an accident for the purpose of compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act. It was submitted that the deceased found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered only because of his employment with the appellant as the deceased was on duty.

5. Whether the murder of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan was an “accident” arising out of and during the course of his employment ?

The law on this issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). The Supreme Court drew distinction between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident. The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder simpliciter. However, if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:

“10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that “murder”, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In Rita Devi (supra), the deceased was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day, the auto rickshaw was parked in the rickshaw stand at Dimapur when some unkno