The court held that employment extends beyond the workspace, covering accidents at employer-provided quarters, thus allowing compensation claims necessitated by work-related injuries.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under section 30 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner under The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 at Gandhidham, District Kutch in Fatal Application No.7 of 2014 wherein, the application filed by the present appellant seeking compensation of Rs.10,58,950/- came to be rejected.

2. It is the case of the present present appellant that appellant is widow of the deceased namely Rajkumar Keval Mushart and appellants no.2 and 3 are children of the deceased employee. The deceased was working as a fitter with respondent no.1 who paid Rs.10,000/- as wages to the deceased employee. The respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel and taking work from the labourer in three different shifts. Thereby, work was functioned in the factory by 24x7. On 17.08.2012 the deceased got electric shock at his quarters around 11 pm and he died on the spot. Claiming the compensation under The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the fatal application came to be filed which came to be rejected on the ground that accident did not arising out of and during the course of employment, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the respondent.

3.1. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that the accident has occurred in the quarters provided by the employer himself and when he was drying his clothes, he got connected with electric wire which was passing outside the window. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that as place of accident is in the quarters provided by the employer, learned court has committed error in rejecting the claim on the ground that accident was not occurred arising out of and in the course of employment. In support of her submission, learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani relied on the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of The Manager, Valparai Estate, Old Valparai (P.O), Valparai Vs Smt.Alamelu in C.M.A No.2735 of 2002 as well as the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Chairman Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shantabai and Anr. In SLP No.29239 of 2019. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that without considering the above decisions, the learned Court has committed an error in dismissing the claim of the present appellant therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and the claim filed by the present appellant is required to be allowed.

3.2. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker appearing for the opponent submits that the accident had occurred when the deceased had completed his duty and was at his own quarter. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker that in any manner it cannot be said that during the course of employment the accident occurred and the deceased died. It is submitted that there was no nexus between the accident occurred and the course of employment and in that background, no error has been committed by the learned court in rejecting the claim and therefore, no interference is required. In support of her submission learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India (Western Railway) Vs Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Therasha reported in 2014 (1) LLJ 479 as well as the decision in the case of Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bai Jiviben Arjan reported in 1980 (2) GLR 39 and submitted to dismiss the ap