An accident arises out of and in the course of employment if there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury, and if the accident occurs on the employer's premises while the employee is coming to or leaving work.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, referred to as 'the Act') and an interesting question of law has been raised. The question that arises for consideration is: what is the true meaning of the expression "arising out of and in course of his employment" used in Section 3(1) of the Act? Section 3(1) of the Act is extracted herein below in extenso:

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 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, 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 workmen, 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 workmen.

Mr. Nanda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that there must be a nexus or proximate connection between the accident in question and the employment of the workman. If there is no connection, causal or proximate, between the accident and the employment of the workman, then the employer will not be liable to pay any compensation for the injury or death of the deceased workman.

2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the present case. Late Tirtha Naik was admittedly an employee under the petitioner. He was working as a helper in the Mechanical Department. After completing his duties he came back home on Saturday, the 3rd of February, 1990 and availed of his weekly holiday on Sunday, the 4th. On Monday, the 5th February, 1990, he left his home to join the general shift in the factory which starts at 8.00 a.m. A colleague of the deceased, one Bijaya Kumar Naik, informed the claimant, Bijuli Naik, that her husband, Tirtha Naik, was feeling uneasiness at the factory gate. She immediately rushed to the spot and was informed that her husband had been shifted to the hospital and at the hospital she found her husband dead. She, therefore, filed an application before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation. It was stated in the application that Tirtha Naik died due to coronary thrombosis. The employer filed a written statement taking the stand that late Tirtha Naik did not suffer any injury during and in the course of his employment and the accident did not take place during and in the course of his employment and, therefore, the employer is not liable for payment of any compensation. It was also stated that there was no official communication that late Tirtha Naik was coming to the duty and the claimant had not served any notice on the employer of the alleged incident.

3. On these pleadings, the Commissioner framed 3 issues and on issue No. 1 came to hold that deceased Tirtha Naik was a workman and was getting Rs. 1,328.10 per month and he was working as a helper in the Mechanical Department. So far as issue Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, namely, whether the accident took place during the course of employment and whether the employer is liable to pay the compensation, the Commissioner considered both the issues together. On consideration of the evidence led before him, the Commissioner came to hold that the deceased was going to attend his duty on 5.2.1990 in general shift at about 7.50 a.m. and got severe chest pain near the factory gate. He further held that the deceased by