JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellant calls in question legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act, Labour Court, Godhra in Workman Compensation Application No.71 of 2002.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 That deceased Chhatrabhai Sardarbhai Parmar was working as daily wager with the appellant in Panam Irrigation Plantation Project of Gujarat State Forests Development Corporation (GSFDC) since 1.9.1986 at Ghabitra and Limborda Plantations.

2.2 The working hours of the deceased Chhatrabhai Sardarbhai Parmar were from 8 AM to 12 in the evening and 2 PM to 6 PM in the morning. The deceased was residing at Chhakadia which is 4 kms. away from the work place and after completion of the working hours, the deceased used to go his home.

2.3 On 1.10.2002, the deceased left work place for his home after completion of his work, however, he stayed in the labour shed in Dhanitra and slept there. On the very same day i.e on 1.10.2002, he had a snake bite in the shed during night.

2.4 That one Mr. Gokalbhai Punabhai Baria, watchman of the labour shed asked him to go to the clinic, but he refused and said that he would go to his residence and would consult an expert in black arts and thereafter went at his home on his own. As the deceased could not cure his snake bite, he succumbed to the same on 2.10.2002.

2.5 The claimants filed aforestated Workman Compensation Application No.71 of 2002 before the learned Commissioner. Learned Commissioner allowed the application of the respondent claimant and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,96,907/- from the date of the incident till realization with 12% simple interest along with funeral charges of Rs.2500/- and Rs.1001/- towards cost of application.

3. Learned advocate, Ms. Vishwa Shah appearing for the M/s Nanavati Associates for the appellant, mainly argued that even according to the findings of the learned Workman Commissioner, the working hours of the deceased was between 8 AM and 12 PM and 2 PM and 6 PM in the morning and evening respectively. She would further submit that the incident took place in midnight at the labour shed at Dhanitra Forest, wherein the deceased died due to snake bite. Looking to the facts and circumstances, she would further submit that the deceased did not die during the course of his employment. The deceased had by his own choice, stayed at the jungle, and during the stay at jungle, he died due to snake bite, and in those circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. She would further submit that in the judgment, the learned Commissioner recorded just conjectures and surmises to grant compensation. No concrete fact aligned with evidence discussed, are decided. She would further submit that the learned Commissioner granted compensation to the claimant only on the ground that there is no reason for the deceased to stay at the labour shed in midnight, except to perform his duty. However, such finding based upon assumption and presumption having not been supported by any evidence on record is erroneous finding. Therefore, she prays that First Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside.

4. As against the aforesaid learned advocate Mr. Paresh Brahmbhatt for the respondent referred to the order dated 28^th December 2010 passed by the coordinate bench of this court at the time of admission of this appeal and submitted that at first blush, the coordinate bench of this court has believed that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error and rightly granted the compensation. He would further submit that order dated 28^th December, 2010 still held holds the field and governs the dispute raised by the appellant. He would further submit that there is no doubt on the fact that the deceased died in the jungle incontrovertibly, fall within the definition of “place of employment”. He woul