1995 (4) TMI 316 - SC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Entitlement to ex-gratia payment, interpretation of "actual VIP security duty," application of the theory of notional extension, and causal relationship between accident and employment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Ex-Gratia Payment:
The primary issue is whether the appellant is entitled to an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000 as per the circular dated 13.6.1986 of the Cabinet Secretariat. The appellant, a security assistant in the Special Protection Group (SPG), claimed this amount due to permanent partial disablement from injuries sustained in a motor accident while traveling in an SPG vehicle on 20.6.1986. The circular stipulates Rs. 50,000 to SPG personnel who suffer permanent partial disablement due to injuries received while performing actual VIP security duty.

2. Interpretation of "Actual VIP Security Duty":
The core question is the meaning of "actual VIP security duty" within the circular. The tribunal and the respondent argued that "actual VIP security duty" implies the period when the person is actively providing security to the VIP, excluding the journey to and from the duty post. The appellant contended that the journey in the official SPG vehicle should be considered part of the duty.

3. Theory of Notional Extension:
The court examined the concept of notional extension, which extends the employer's premises to include areas the employee passes through while going to and from work. The court referenced the Workmen's Compensation Act, stating that the journey in the official SPG vehicle should be considered a notional extension of the duty premises. The appellant was traveling in an official vehicle, not a public or private vehicle, indicating he was on duty during the journey.

4. Causal Relationship Between Accident and Employment:
The court emphasized the necessity of a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The appellant's travel in the official SPG vehicle was an incident of his employment, fulfilling an official duty. The court cited precedents, including Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and Ors. and Maokinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, to support the notion that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the meaning of "actual VIP security duty" in the circular should align with "in the course of the employment" under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The tribunal's narrow interpretation was erroneous. The authorities were urged to adopt a humane and liberal approach to advance the circular's objective. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with Rs. 10,000 as costs.