Death of workman by murder due to personal enmity, occurring remotely during nominal employment duties, does not arise out of and in course of employment under Workmen’s Compensation Act absent causal link to job functions.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.06.2006, passed by learned Commissioner, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in terms whereof, the petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, for the award of compensation by the claimants therein was disposed of by the learned Commissioner in the following terms:-
“The petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4,11,900/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of 28-8-2003 i.e. 1,40,029/-. The principle amount of compensation along with interest liabilities form the date of death i.e. 28-8-2003 tall today (i.e. Rs. 1,40,029/-) shall be paid by the respondent No.1. The awarded amount shall be deposited within one month failing which the respondent shall be liable for penalties. The petition is accordingly disposed of and file is ordered to be consigned to record room after completion.”

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that even if it was to be assumed that the deceased was indeed engaged by the petitioner as a driver with his tractor, the unfortunate death of the deceased was not on account of any accident or incident which occurred in the course of his employment. He submitted that it is a matter of record that the deceased was found in an injured condition at a place 7 kilometer away from where the tractor was parked and the injuries were implied on the petitioner by some private individuals on account of some personal fued. Petitioner subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused are facing trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and all these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Commissioner while deciding Issue No.1 that there was no evidence on record which suggested that the deceased- workman was murdered in the performance of the act of his employment. He argued that learned Commissioner erred in holding that the death of late Shri Joginder Singh was attributable to the course of his employment.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4-claimants submitted that as the deceased was engaged as a driver on the tractor of the petitioner and it was in the course of his employment that he lost his life, the death of the deceased was attributable to his employment and the findings returned to this effect by the learned Commissioner could not be faulted with. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his contentions:-

“1. Rita Devi (Smt.) and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113.
2. Manju Sarkar and others Vs. Mabish Miah and others , (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 21.
3. Daya Kishan Joshi and Another Vs. Dynemech Systems Private Limited , (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 642.
4. Poonam Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 55.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5- Insurance Company submitted that as far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it has insured the tractor and it is not the case herein that someone lost his life on account of some accident of the tractor, therefore, either way the Insurance Company has got nothing to do with the issue between th