K.Govindarajan, J.

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has filed the above appeal under Sec.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', questioning the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, made in W.C.No.141/2003, dated 7.6.2004, fixing the compensation payable to the claimants.

2. According to the claimant, one Ardhanari, who was working under the appellants died on 19.3.2000 when he was proceeding to work. At the time of his death, he was aged about 41 years and earning a sum of Rs.4,229/ as monthly salary. On that basis, the claimant claimed a sum of R.2,50,000/- as compensation. The same was resisted by the appellants on the ground that the death of ;the employee was not due to the employment or in the course of employment and so the claim petition cannot be sustained.

3. Learned Deputy Commissioner, Salem, relying on various decisions held that the deceased employee died when he was proceeding to work which has to be taken that he died in the course of employment and so the respondents therein are liable to pay the compensation. Questioning the same, the above appeal is preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the employee died when he was proceeding to work and not in the course of employment, it cannot be said that the death was due to the employment or in the course of employment. The said submission cannot be countenanced.

5. The point for consideration in this case is:-

"Whether the death of the employee while he was proceeding to work could be construed as the death caused in the course of employment?"

6. To appreciate the issue, it is beneficial to extract relevant provision, namely, Sec.3(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

"3. Employer's liability for compensation:- (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;

(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to -

(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or

(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workman, or

(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workman."

7. The expression "injury" under Sec.3 of the Act has not been defined in the Act but it is of wide import. "personal injury" spoken to in Sec.3(1) of the Act may be leading to death or disablement or impairment of parts of the body and mind in either of which event, the employer is liable to pay compensation if the conditions laid down in Sec.3(1) of the Act are satisfied. The three conditions for attracting the provisions of Sec.3(1) of the Act are that death or injury must be caused to a workman; the said injury must have been caused by accident; and the accident must arise out of and in the course of employment. It is well settled that if the injury or death from the point of view of the workman who dies or suffers the injury is unexpected or without design on his part, then the death or injury would be by accident although it was brought about by a heart attack or some other cause to be found in the condition of workman himself.

8. Though the Act has colonial origin, it is a legislation protecting the disabled workman without resting on the mercy or grace of the employer by way of the workman continuing in service. Since the Act is a welfare legislation, it is expected that the provisions would receive libera