9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Kantawala, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application made by Gajanan Bhan Magat the appellant, under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Act No. 34 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for benefit in respect of employment injury. The appellant was employed as an assistant electrical forman in India United Mills Nos. 2 and 3 at Bombay. On December 9, 1956 he was working on the day shift and a coolie named Shankar Bhiva was working under him. The appellant happened to reprimand Shankar for not discharging his duty properly. Nothing happened between the appellant and Shankar till December 16, 1956. On that day, the appellant was on duty in the second shift and his hours of duty were from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. His reliever Fernandes, however, arrived in the mill by about 10-15 p.m. and relieved him. After handing over charge to Fernandes the appellant left the mill. As soon as he came out of the mill compound he was assaulted and beaten with a bamboo stick by some assailants and the case of the appellants is that one of the persons who so assaulted him was Shankar. The appellant was thereafter removed to the hospital and as a result of the injuries sustai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s employment being an insurable employment. His submission is that there was a clear finding that the injury to the appellant arose out of his employment. He also relied upon the finding of this Court that the appellant handed over the charge of his post to Fernandes and left the mill premises for going home. It was in that context that he happened to be on the road where he was subjected to an assault. The submission of Mr. Buch is that an injury caused to an employee does not cease to arise in the course of his employment simply because he is assaulted outside the actual place of his employment. He submitted that if at the time when the employee was assaulted he was doing something reasonably incidental to his employment then the injury arose not only out of employment but also in the course of his employment. Mr. Jaykar on the other hand on behalf of the Insurance Corporation submitted that when the appellant handed over the charge of his post to Fernandes and left the mill premises, his employment terminated or came to an end; that the assault on the appellant had not taken place within the mill premises; that he was assaulted while he was outside the mill premises at a distanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ankar arose out of the employment of the appellant as an Assistant Foreman. He, however, took the view that as the assault was committed on the road outside the mill compound, the assault could not be said to be in the course of his employment. 8. The short question to be considered in this case is, if regard be had to the facts and circumstances of this case and the finding of Gatne, J., can it be said that the injury to the appellant arose in the course of his employment? Having regard to the provisions and the scheme of the Act it is not permissible to us to challenger the findings of fact arrived at by the Insurance Court and the learned Judge. The learned Judge in his judgment has clearly observed that the case must proceed on the basis that the appellant handed over the charge of his post to Fernandes and left the premises for going home and it was in the nature of that context that he happened to be on the road where he was subjected to an assault. The assault on the appellant had taken place at a distance of about 25 or 30 paces away from the mill premises while he was leaving the mill premises. 9. A person is only in the course of his employment while doing something w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enough so as to cover a case, where there may not necessarily be a direct connection between the injury caused as a result of an accident and the employment of the workmen. And there may be circumstances attending the employment, which would go to show that the workman received personal injury as a result of the accident arising out of his employment. 11. In Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Shop, E. I. Rly. v. Mahabir, , it is pointed out that the word "employment" is of wider import than the work "work" or "duty". The expression "in the course of employment" means not only the actual work which the man is employed to do but what is incident to it, in the course of his service. The expression is not to be regarded as confined to the "nature of the employment". It applies to employment such, i.e., to its nature, its conditions, its obligations, and its incidents. It would thus include not only the period when he is doing the work actually allotted to him but also the time when he is at a place where he would not be but for his employment. It is further pointed out that "What may be called" "environmental accidents", i.e., accidents resulting from the surroundings in which the wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses was actually reasonably incidental to the duty that he was called upon do discharge as an Assistant Electrical Foreman in the mills. The time when and the place where he was attacked also clearly show that they are incidental to the course of his employment. It cannot be said that at the time when he was assaulted, the appellant took the same risks as those incurred by any member of the public using the highway. The appellant would not have been at that time at the place where he was assaulted but for his employment. As his being at the spot was reasonably incidental to his employment, the assault which resulted in the injury arose in the course of his employment. As such, all the ingredients required under the definition of "employment injury" are fulfilled in the present case and it can be said that the appellant suffered an employment injury as defined under the Act. 13. Reliance was placed by Mr. Jaykar on behalf of the Insurance Corporation upon the decision in Netherton v. Coles, 1945, 1. All England Reports 227. In that case the workman was a painter and was employed by the appellant, a building contractor. By the contract of employment the employer had reserved the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for disobedience of orders, suspended from work, pending an inquiry into the matter by the under-manager of the colliery. It appeared that men were not allowed to remain in the workings of the colliery when not at work; and the practice was for a workman who was suspended while at work to go to the pit bottom, i.e., the bottom of the shaft in which the cage worked, by which access to or egress from the mine was obtained. The appellant, when he was suspended, went into a place, called a "passby," at the side of the tramway leading to the pit bottom. While sitting there he was ordered by the deputy to go to the pit bottom. He remained "however" in the passby, where, about two hours later, a fall from the roof took place, by which he was injured. If the appellant had gone to the pit bottom as directed, he could not have got out of the mine till the cage went up in the ordinary course, which was later than the time at which the accident happened. Upon a claim by the appellant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the county Court judge found that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the appellant's employment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
