Causal connection between the nature of employment and the accident is crucial for liability under the Workmen Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under section 30(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against dismissal of the application for compensation passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi–cum-Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act in W.C. Case No. 3/2007.

2. The Applicant /appellant’s case is as follows:-

(i) That the Ganesh Oraon husband of the claimant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. That husband was employed under the opposite party no. 1 as watchman/Munshi on a salary of Rs.1700/-per month and his work involved making reminders for payment to the customer apart from working as watchman in the brick kiln. The opposite party no. 1 was the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (E) of the Act.

(ii) That on 09.12.2002 at 2.30 PM the deceased was on his normal duty when a tractor bearing no. BR-41-3793 came to the brick kiln of the opposite party No. 1 and he proceeded on the tractor to Gumla for giving reminder to some customer for payment due. The tractor had moved just 200 yards from the kiln that it overturned in which he sustained fatal injuries and died in the accident. It is the case of the applicant that her husband died on duty i.e. in course of and out of employment. At the time of death of age of the deceased husband was 32 years.

3. Owner of the brick kiln and the insurance company have been impleaded as O.P. No. 1 & 2.

4. Opposite party no.1 has contested the claim on the ground that the deceased Ganesh Oraon did not receive injury resulting in his death during the course of employment. It has however not been disputed that he was employed in the brick kiln as a staff of O.P. No.1. He had gone out on his own free will and left the work premises and on way to Gumla the accident took place.

5. The Insurance Company has contested the claim on the ground that there did not exist any employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite party number one. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased died during the course of his employment which admittedly did not take place within the premises of the workplace. Being a watchman, he was not supposed to leave the workplace.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed :

I. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action?

II. Whether the deceased workmen died due to injuries received in an accident arising out of and in course of employment?

III. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief?

7. The learned Court below dismissed the claim application mainly on the ground that the accident took place at a distance of 200 yard from the brick kiln by placing reliance on 2002 (2) JCR 349.

8. The present appeal has been admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :

I. The lower court below has gravely erred in not considering the concept of notional extension of time and space.

II. The lower court below has erroneously decided issue no. 3, that the workmen has died outside the premises of the respondent no.1, as such he is not liable for any compensation.

9. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that accident occurred during the course of employment, but the learned Court below has attached undue weightage to the FIR and disallowed the claim application on the ground that the accident took place outside the workplace without considering the causal connection between the employment and accident. The admitted facts of the group insurance under the Workmen (now Employees) Compensation Act has also not been considered. It is also submitted that no evidence has been led on behalf of the opposite parties in support of their case. Reliance has been placed on the following authorities :

(i) General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes AIR 1964 SC 193 “Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question, when does an employment