The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, despite the absence of a notional extension of the workplace, as long as the accident occurs during the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, assisted by Jay Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved with judgment and award dated 09.09.2015 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Bokaro, in E.C. Case No. 03/2010 whereby the learned commissioner has been pleased to direct the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,42,100/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.12.2007 till the date of payment.

3. The claimant who is wife of Bhadru Mahto has filed the claim before the Employees Commissioner, Bokaro on account of death of her husband. It is stated that late Bhadru Mahto, the husband of the claimant met with an accident on 01.12.2007 at about 17: 15 A.M., while he has left the house to join the services of the opposite parties about 7.00 A.M. It is further case that the deceased was travelling in a scooter and has got head injuries for which U.D. Case No. 15/2007 was registered. During the investigation of said U.D. Case, the police has collected evidence that the deceased Bhadru Mahto has left the house for the purpose of joining the services and, hence the said accident is arising out of and in course of employment. The income of the deceased was shown as Rs. 9200/- per month and therefore, the claimant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest from the date of accident.

4. In the said case notice was issued and the opposite party who is appellant herein who has appeared before the learned Commissioner and filed written statement and on contest the said award has been passed.

5. This appeal was admitted on 08.06.2022 on following substantial question of law “ (i) Whether the respondent will get the benefit of Notional extension of work place even if he does not reside in the official quarter ? (ii). Whether the NJCS Agreement will have any effect on the concept of notional extension of work place under the Workmen Compensation Act ?

6. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that learned commissioner has not appreciated the spirit of notional Joint Committee Agreement for steel industry in right perspective. He submits that the in view of that agreement person who is going to discharge the duty with the company is entitled for accidental death of compensation subject to condition put therein. He submits that circular has been framed in 1983 which was brought before the Commissioner as Exhibit M5 and based on that argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the deceased was coming from Bhawanipur side for discharging his duty which was not his official residence whereas the company has allotted quarter No. 12 D to the deceased where he was not residing there and based on that the argument was advanced before the learned commissioner that was negated on the ground that in the NJCS Agreement of 1995 and 2010 there is no clause of framing of rule at that level, which is erroneous. He further submits that when quarter was allotted to the deceased he was not required to reside at Bhawanipur side and in that view of the matter no “notional extension” with regard to the work place is not coming to help the claimant. On these grounds Mr. Sinha submits that there is perversity in the award and this court may interfere with the said award and set aside the said award.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the accident took place on 01.12.2007. The circular is of 1983. The circular was based on the basis of NJCS Agreement dated 23.05.1984. He further submits that the learned tribunal has considered the NJCS Agreement 1995 and 2010 and based on that rightly concluded that the rule framing part is not there in that view of the matter Circular of 1983 based on NJCS Agreement 1983 is not operative. He further submits that on that ground