For an accident to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must arise out of and during the course of employment. There must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') against the order dated 23.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Case No. 5 of 1991 under the Act.

2. This appeal is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The undisputed facts of this case are that the deceased Kuldeep Singh was an employee of the appellant. He died on 17.11.1990. It was alleged by respondent No. 1 in her application for compensation that she was mother of Kuldeep Singh. He was on duty between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 17.11.1990. It was alleged that he died in the factory premises on account of certain head injuries. The respondent No. 1 claimed that she was dependent upon the deceased Kuldeep Singh. He was drawing Rs. 2,042 (Rupees two thousand forty-two) per month. At the time of his death, he was aged about 34 years. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 79,760 (Rupees seventy-nine thousand Seven hundred sixty) plus interest at the rate of 14 per cent (fourteen per cent) per annum.

4. The appellant, on the other hand, stated that Kuldeep Singh did not die during the course of employment; nor did the accident arose out of the employment. It was claimed that Kuldeep Singh, having finished the first half of his duty, went for lunch during the interval after punching his card. At about 8 p.m., he was required to come back for the shift. At about 9 p.m., he did not return. His dead body was recovered on 18.11.1990 within the premises by the C.I.S.F. guard. His post-mortem was conducted and it was stated that the police had registered the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed against the relatives of the deceased. At the time of filing of written statement, it was stated that a criminal case was pending for murder of deceased Kuldeep Singh. It was alleged that there was no relation of the death of Kuldeep Singh with his employment as he died on account of assault caused upon him by his relatives. On the aforesaid allegations, inter alia, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner tried the claim of the respondent No. 1.

5. He came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1, being the mother of the deceased, was dependant under the Act and, therefore, she could claim compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has further found that the deceased was murdered in the course of his duty and, therefore, she was entitled to Rs. 79,760 by way of compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation imposed interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in case the amount was not deposited within one month of date of the impugned order dated 23.11.1996.

6. In this appeal, the only point that has to be decided by this court is if the accident arose out of and during the course of employment? Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both the ingredients, which are necessary for decision under Section 3(1) of the Act, are missing in this case and, therefore, the application filed by the respondent No. 1 is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, argued that both these ingredients, under Section 3(1) of the Act, are present in this case and, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act.

8. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this court is of the opinion that this appeal must succeed on the short ground that it cannot be said that accident arose out of the employment. So far as the second ingredient that the accident arose during the course of the employment is concerned, it can be assumed that the death of the deceased occurred within the factory premises as his body was found there. Looking to the common course of events, this presumption can be drawn. The deceased did not leave the premises and he was supposed to return back to the