1954 (1) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court dealt with a case where a workman on his way to work was murdered. There was no evidence to show that the murder was due to any motive against the deceased workman. It was held that the death took place because of an accident arising out employment. The deceased was employment by Central Railway at Kurla station and he lived in the railway quarters adjoining the station. It was found as a fact that the only access for the deceased from his quarters to the Kurla Railway Station was through the compound of the railway quarters. On the particular day the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty. While on his way, he was stabbed by some unknown persons. It is not disputed by the railway company that the deceased died as a result of an accident nor was it disputed that the accident arose in the course of employment.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "arising out of employment" under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a case where a mukadam employed in the Central Railway was murdered while on his way to duty, leading to a dispute over whether the accident arose out of his employment. The court emphasized the need for a causal connection between the accident and the employment, with the proximate cause being crucial. It was established that the deceased was in a spot where he was assaulted and murdered due to his employment, as he had to pass through that spot to join duty. The court clarified that the peril faced by the employee must be incidental to his employment and not personal, with no evidence that the deceased added to the peril. The judgment cited precedents to support the principle that if an employee is in a place due to employment and faces a peril resulting in an accident, a causal connection is established.

The court referred to previous decisions where injuries caused by external factors were deemed to have arisen out of employment, emphasizing that the nature and conditions of employment play a significant role in determining if an accident is work-related. The judgment highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to show that the accident arose out of employment, but once it is established that the employee was at a specific place due to work and the accident occurred there, the burden is discharged. The court rejected the argument that the applicant must prove the peril was not personal to the employee, stating that the law does not impose such a burden. The judgment stressed that the causal connection between the accident and employment must be proximate, not remote, and in this case, the connection was clear as the deceased was assaulted at a spot he had to be due to his employment.

Ultimately, the court set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the respondent to pay the claimed amount to the applicant, as the court found that the deceased's death resulted from an accident arising out of his employment. The judgment concluded by ordering the respondent to deposit the sum with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and to bear the costs of the proceedings.