Claim for compensation raised by employee held justified.

D. RAJU, J.

The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated February 3, 1997 in CMA No. 1032 of 1995, wherein the learned single Judge, in the process of confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, exercising the powers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, held that the accident in question had occurred "arising out of and in the course of the employment."

2. The appellant-claimant is a permanent worker in the appellant-Estate. On September 5, 1991 at about 7.50 a.m. when she left her child at the creche and was going for work near the Muster, one Muthiah, who is stated to be another worker of the appellant-Estate came from behind and assaulted her with a pruning knife on her left hand, as a consequence of which she sustained an injury on her left hand. The appellant-claimant was taken to the Government, Hospital for treatment and thereafter W.C. No. 29 of 1993 came to be filed under Section18(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming compensation on the ground that she sustained an injury, which entitled her for compensation under the Act. She claimed that she was paid Rs. 778.44 per month and that she was 28 years of age at the time of accident. Per contra, the appellant-Management contested the claim contending that the injury sustained by the claimant was in no way connected with her employment, that the assault was made by the co-worker purely on the ground of some personal animosity and therefore, the injury caused did not arise out of and in the course of the employment and the compensation of Rs. 25, 400 is not payable to her. It was also contended that the claimant was 31 years of age and not 28 years of age.

3. On the above claims and counter claims, the claim petition was heard and oral evidence was let in on both sides and the respondent alone marked Exs. R-1 to R-3. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that going to the work spot through a place where muster is taken attracts some form of causal relation with the performance of plucking tea leaves and in this case the appellant-claimant was assaulted by a co-worker and therefore, the injury suffered has to be held to be incidental to her employment and consequently, the incident must be taken to have arisen out of the employment of the workman. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into account the nature of injury as also the wages drawn, it was fixed as Rs. 8, 011.

4. Aggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter on appeal before this Court by filing CMA No. 1032 of 1995, which as noticed earlier, was dismissed confirming the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Hence the above appeal.

5. Mr. John Zachariah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while reiterating the stand taken before the learned single Judge and also by placing reliance upon decisions in P.W. 1 Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Smt. Ayyammai, 1994 (2) LLN 1117 and The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, (1997-I-LLJ-34) strenuously contended that the inquiry in question cannot be said to have been caused to the claimant by any accident arising out of, and in the course of the employment and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge as also that of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation are contrary to law and could not be sustained. The learned counsel also submitted that the injury sustained in the case had no nexus with the work and the theory of notional extension will have no application to the case on hand. It was further argued that so long as the injury was not sustained in the course of discharge of her duties and as such the injury had not even any causal connection with the job of the claimant, merely from the fact that the person who caused the injury happened to be a co-worke