Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

In this appeal filed under S.5 of the High Court Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), judgment of learned Single judge holding that the respondent thereinafter referred to as the employee) is entitled to accident leave is under challenge by Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., who is hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'.

2. Factual position is almost undisputed. Sans unnecessary details it is as follows: Employee sustained an injury on 1.2.1995, in the factory premises. According to the employee, he met with the accident due to the careless of a construction worker, near the acid plant. He applied for accident leave from 1.2.1995 to 16.3.1995, which was refused. It was stated in the letter of refusal that his prayer cannot be accepted as it was not permissible under the Rules. The refusal was challenged in Original Petition No. 19504 of 1997. Learned Single Judge held that the ground on which the accident leave was refused was not tenable. It was observed that the accident happened in the factory premises, and the employee was expected to be present for joining duty, and therefore it cannot be said that the accident had not occurred during the course of