Gujarat High Court
Taradevi Rajkumar vs Keyur Ispat Limited on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2259 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
TARADEVI RAJKUMAR & ORS.
Versus
KEYUR ISPAT LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LAKSHA BHAVNANI for MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under section 30 of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 at Gandhidham, District Kutch in Fatal Application No.7 of 2014 wherein, the application filed by the present appellant seeking Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.10,58,950/- came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present present appellant that appellant is widow of the deceased namely Rajkumar Keval Mushart and appellants no.2 and 3 are children of the deceased employee. The deceased was working as a fitter with respondent no.1 who paid Rs.10,000/- as wages to the deceased employee. The respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel and taking work from the labourer in three different shifts. Thereby, work was functioned in the factory by 24x7. On 17.08.2012 the deceased got electric shock at his quarters around 11 pm and he died on the spot. Claiming the compensation under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the fatal application came to be filed which came to be rejected on the ground that accident did not arising out of and during the course of employment, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the respondent.
3.1. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined the accident has occurred in the quarters provided by the employer himself and when he was drying his clothes, he got connected with electric wire which was passing outside the window. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that as place of accident is in the quarters provided by the employer, learned court has committed error in rejecting the claim on the ground that accident was not occurred arising out of and in the course of employment. In support of her submission, learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani relied on the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of The Manager, Valparai Estate, Old Valparai (P.O), Valparai Vs Smt.Alamelu in C.M.A No.2735 of 2002 as well as the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Chairman Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shantabai and Anr. In SLP No.29239 of 2019. Learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani submits that without considering the above decisions, the learned Court has committed an error in dismissing the claim of the present appellant therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and the claim filed by the present appellant is Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined required to be allowed.
3.2. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker appearing for the opponent submits that the accident had occurred when the deceased had completed his duty and was at his own quarter. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker that in any manner it cannot be said that during the course of employment the accident occurred and the deceased died. It is submitted that there was no nexus between the accident occurred and the course of employment and in that background, no error has been committed by the learned court in rejecting the claim and therefore, no interference is required. In support of her submission learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India (Western Railway) Vs Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Therasha reported in 2014 (1) LLJ 479 as well as the decision in the case of Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bai Jiviben Arjan reported in 1980 (2) GLR 39 and submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the present appellant.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined advocates for the respective parties the moot question arising for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is that whether accident of the deceased has occurred during the course of and out of the employment? To determine the above question, it would be appropriate to refer the section 3 of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under:
Employer's liability for compensation.-- (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable --
(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding 1 [three] days; (b) in respect of any 2 [injury, not resulting in death 3 [or permanent total disablement] caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to-- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workman, Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
5. 2 [(2)If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is provided, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: 3 [Provided that if it is proved,-- (a) that a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule II has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment; and (b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section: Provided further that if it is proved that a workman who having served under any employer in any Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section.] 1 [(2A) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just.]
6. (3) 2 [The Central Government or the State Government], by notification in the Official Gazette, after giving, not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply 3 [in the case of a notification by the Central Government, within the territories to which this Act extends, or, in case of a notification by the State Government, within the State] 4 [***] Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.]
7. (4) Save as provided by 5 [sub-seclions (2), (2A)] and (3), no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect of any disease unless the disease is 6 [***] directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury-- (a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) if an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 7.1. On referring the above provision it emerges that under section 3(1) of the Act, the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, to answer the above question the facts of case has to be looked into. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Poonam Devi vs Oriental Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 55 wherein, it is held that employment does not necessarily end when the 'down tool' signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual work shop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and the exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of the case. Employment may end or begin not only when an employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of social beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the legislature, rather than to stultify it.
8. If one would refer the material placed before this court certain facts are undisputed which are as under:
(a) the workman was working with respondent no.1 Company as a labourer.
(b) The accident had occurred at 11.00 pm while workman was in quarters provided by the company and drying his clothes on the wire which was outside Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined of the window and during that process his hand came in contact with live electric wire which was passing outside the window where the cello-tape was found to be torn off.
(c) It is not in dispute that his duty was in the day shift and the timing of day shift was 8 in the morning till 4 in the evening
(d) As per the PM Report the cause of death is mentioned due to shock of electrocution.
(e) Exh.38 is the panchnama of the place where it was found that electric wire which was passing outside the window where the cello-tape was torn of.
(f) As per the written statement which is part of the paper book provided by the learned advocate of the appellant, to facilitate the work, the company has provided quarters in the same premises and where the accommodation was given to the labourer so that company work can be done smoothly.
(g) The deceased was working since 01.08.2012 in the company and was staying in the said quarters.
9. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Chairman Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shantabai and Anr. In SLP No.29239 of 2019 wherein, the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment" is interpreted which reads as under:
"13. The words "arising out of and in the course of his employment"
have been a subject matter of interpretation by this Court. In this regard, we extract the relevant portions of the judgment of this Court in ESI Corporation (supra) as under:
"13. The meaning of the words "in the course of his employment"
appearing in Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was examined by this Court in the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja [AIR 1958 SC 881 : (1958) 2 LLJ 249]. There, the appellant, a salt manufacturing company, employed workmen both temporary and permanent. The salt-works was situated near a creek opposite to the town of Porbandar. The salt-works could be reached by at least two ways from the town, one an overland route nearly 6 to 7 miles long and the other via a creek which had to be crossed by a boat. In the evening of 12-6-1952, a boat carrying some of the workmen, capsized due to bad weather and overloading. As a result of this, some of the workmen were drowned. One of the questions that came up for consideration was whether the accident had taken place in the course of the employment of the workers. S. Jafer Imam, J., speaking for the Court, held:
"As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded."Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined After laying down the principle broadly, S. Jafer Imam, J., went on to observe that there might be some reasonable extension in both time and place to this principle. A workman might be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises in some special cases. The facts and circumstances of each case would have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension. But, examining the facts of the case, in particular, after noticing the fact that the workman used a boat, which was also used as public ferry for which they had to pay the boatman's dues, S. Jafer Imam, J., observed:
"It is well settled that when a workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public transport he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an area which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which the employer is not liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him. In the present case, even if it be assumed that the theory of notional extension extends up to point D, the theory cannot be extended beyond it. The moment a workman left point B in a boat or left point A but had not yet reached point B, he could not be said to be in the course of his employment and any accident happening to him on the journey between these two points could not be said to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. Both the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the High Court were Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined in error in supposing that the deceased workmen in this case were still in the course of their employment when they were crossing the creek between points A and B. The accident which took place when the boat was almost at point A resulting in the death of so many workmen was unfortunate, but for that accident the appellant cannot be made liable.""
14. The expression "accident" according to P Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon Dictionary means "undesigned, sudden or unexpected event; mishap; misfortune; disaster". The word "accident" is derived from the Latin verb "accidere" signifying "fall upon, befall, happen, chance". In other words, it is a sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation upon the instant, rather than something which continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance not according to usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exits or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence."
10. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 wherein, while applying the provisions of section 3 of the Act, the Apex Court has laid down tests which is to be carried out. It is observed by the Apex Court that three tests is required while examining the case with regard to "in the course of and out of the employment", (1) there must be casual connection between the injury and the accident Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) the onus upon the applicant to show that it was the work and resulting stay which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) if the evidence brought on record establish a greater probability which satisfy a reasonable man that work contributed to the causing of personal injury it would be enough for the workman to succeed but would depend on the facts of each case.
10.1. On applying the above test in the present case in the opinion of this Court, the notional extension is required to be given with regard to the time and space of the employment. As the quarters where the accident occurred was allotted by the employer in order to perform the statutory obligation and to attend the work promptly and in appointed time, hence, the impugned award dismissing the claim filed by the heirs of the deceased workman requires to be interfered with. The decision relied by the learned advocate for the respondent and relied by the learned labour court while rejecting the claim is on different facts where there was no nexus between the accident and the employment. Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2259/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
11. In that background, appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 at Gandhidham, District Kutch in Fatal Application No.7 of 2014 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner under the workman compensation to determine the amount of compensation, which exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. Learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for respondent no.2 requests for stay of this judgment however, considering the fact that this Court has not determined the amount of compensation and the learned Commissioner is directed to complete the exercise in stipulated period, the request is not acceded thereto.
13. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:29:51 IST 2025