IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the words 'arising out of employment' and 'in the course of employment' as per the Employees Compensation Act, the burden of proof on the workman, and the application of the Act to government employees.

JUDGMENT :

On mentioning of Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey, who has been authorized by respondent no.1. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 are the children of Neimi Kachhap who is the wife of late Sukra Kachhap. The authorization letter has been produced by Mr. Pandey appearing in person and the same was taken on record.

2. This memo of appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 08.6.2013 passed in W.C.Case No.8 of 2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.6,12,360/-.

3. The respondent no.1 who is the wife of late Sukra Kachchap has filed the application before the Labour Court under the Workman Compensation Act, now Employees Compensation Act wherein it was stated that the deceased Sukra Kachchap was employed in National Horticulture Research Centre, Palandu. On 27.12.2010 an animal entered in the said farm therefore the deceased Sukra Kachchap was trying to oust that animal in the meantime a vehicle was coming rashly and negligently on the road which dashed the deceased Sukra Kachchap resulting his death on the spot. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukra Kachchap was conducted and in this background the said case was filed for compensation in terms of Employees Compensation Act 1923.

4. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is perverse as it is not based on the materials on record. He submits that accident took place in course of duty has not been established. He submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to associate that the date of death of the deceased was neither arising out of nor in course of employment. He submits that if such a situation was there, the order is bad in law and to buttress his argument he relied in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co.(P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607 wherein at paragraph nos.5 and 6 it has been held as under:

“5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of employment” are understood to mean that “during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.” In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression “arising out of employment” is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such — to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises ‘out of employment’. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley [(1917) AC 352] Lord Sumner laid down the following test for determining whether an accident “arose out of the employment”:

“There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of the workman was within the sphe