MISRA, J. :- This appeal arises out of a case for compensation under S. 3, Workmens Compensation Act. The sole point which requires determination in the appeal is whether the accident which occurred on 22-5-49, in the railway yard at Lucknow and resulted in the loss of both legs of the respondent Mahabir, a machine man employed in the Carriage and Wagon Shops of the East Indian Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow, arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act.

2. The facts are no longer in dispute. Mahabir lives in village Mahmudpur which is close to Malhaur railway station on the East Indian Railway. He used to come free of cost to Lucknow junction every morning from Malhaur along with other employees in a workmens special provided by the railway and proceed after crossing the lines to the Alambagh Workshop which is at a distance of about a mile from the junction across the railway yard. This was a somewhat shorter route and it was taken as a matter of routine for going to and coming from the works in preference to a sub-way and two other overbridge routes which were also available. When the workmen were on night shift, they were provided with special permits for travelling by ordinary passenger trains free of charge between Lucknow junction and Malhaur station. Mahabir was on duty on the night between the 21st and 22nd May, 1949. He finished work at 5.30 a.m. and was returning as usual to the Lucknow junction station over the yard in order to catch the passenger train which left there at 8 a.m. for Malhaur. When he was within a short distance of the station platform he crossed the line and in doing so he was run over by a shunting engine at about 6.30 a.m. As a result of the accident Mahabirs legs were crushed and they had to be ultimately amputated.

3. The claim which gives rise to the present appeal was preferred by the respondent after due formalities. The commissioner appointed under S. 20, Workmens Compensation Act awarded a sum of Rs. 4900/- as compensation against the appellant, the Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Workshop. The money was deposited with the Commissioner and the decision is now challenged under S. 30 of the Act.

4. The relevant portion of S. 3(1), Workmens Compensation Act reads :

"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) ........

(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by accident which is directly attributable to - (i) .....

(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 expression out of and in the course of his employment occurring in the aforesaid section has been the subject of interpretation in numerous cases and it has been found almost a hopeless task to give such a comprehensive or exhaustive meaning as may be applicable to all cases. It is plain that the phrase defines the time within which the accident must occur in order to saddle the employer with liability. In cases, therefore, which arise in consequence of an injury caused to ah employee while he is actually engaged in the work for the doing of which he is employed, there can hardly be any room for controversy on the ground of interpretation for it would clearly fall within the section. The word employment, however, has been given a wider meaning than the word work and it has been universally accepted that a man may be in the course of employment without being actually engaged on work for the doing of which he is engaged. In the well known case of - St. Helens Colliery Co. v. Hewinston, (1924) AC 59 (A), Lord Atkinson emphasised that a workman acts in the course of his employment not only when he is engaged in doing something in discharge o