The court held that in order to determine whether an employee is a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the court must consider both the nature of the employment and the purpose for which the employee was employed. The court also held that in order to establish a causal relationship between an accident and employment, the employee must show that the accident occurred because of a risk that is an incident of the employment.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 30 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated March 18, 1980, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act at Patna, in Workmens Compensation Case No. 12 of 1977/6 of 1978, by which the application filed by the appellant for compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act has been dismissed.

2. The deceased Narendra Kumar was appointed as seasonal khalasi under the Irrigation Department by the Assistant Engineer, Udar Asthan in the district of Gaya on July 21, 1975 for a period up to October 20, 1975. On October 1, 1975 he was on duty at Dhawal Bigha Canal Regulator under Udar Asthan Irrigation Scheme. According to the appellant, her husband Narendra Kumar while on night duty on October 1, 1975 at Dhawal Bigha Canal Regulator was done to death. She filed a claim application under Sec. 3 of the Act claiming Rs. 16,800.00 as compensation.

3. The respondent Executive Engineer contested the claim primarily on two grounds; firstly, that the deceased was not a workman as defined under the Act and, secondly, that the deceased did not die by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment.

4. Both the parties examined two witnesses each in support of their cases. Applicant examined herself as AW 1 and one Aditya Narayan Pandey as AW 2. The applicant stated that her husband was on duty and he was murdered at the Dhawal Bigha Regulator. In cross-examination she stated that her husband was murdered due to old enmity. AW 2 stated that the deceased Narendra Kumar was done to death while he was on duty.

5. The respondent has examined P.K. Krishna Panikar, Junior Engineer, posted in the Irrigation Department at the relevant time as OPW 1 and Binda Singh, Canal Meth. as OPW 2. OPW 1 has admitted that at the relevant time the deceased was on duty at canal on regulator and chowkidar informed him that he was traceless and then he reported that the deceased perhaps has died. OPW 2 has stated that he was sleeping along with the deceased at the place of duty and he woke up on hearing the sound of firing. Thereafter, he fled away.

6. The Commissioner under the Act held that the deceased was not a workman as defined under Sec. 2(1) (n) of the Act and even assuming that he was a workman, he did not die by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to compensation under the Act.

7. The matter was placed for final hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court, who has referred the case to a Division Bench, as, according to him, two important questions arise for determination in this case which are as follows :

(1) Sec. 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Is it open to the appellant to dispute the finding of fact duly arrived at by the Labour Court?

(2) Whether the murder of an employee at the instance of his enemies will bring the case in the course of employment, simply because he was murdered at the place of his duty?

8. The first question to be determined is as to the scope of the appeal under Sec. 30 of the Act. The relevant portion of Sec. 30 of the Act runs as follows :

"(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely- (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Sec. 4-A;

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of a