Bombay High Court
Smt. Jamuna Devi Brijlal Yadav And Ors. vs M/S Arjun Travels Mumbai Prop.Mr.Arjun ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:49023
Fa-390-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2025
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16198 OF 2024
M/S Arjun Travels
A sole proprietorship concern,
Through Proprietor -
Mr. Harbansingh Arjunsingh Haspal
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Having address at 170, LBS Road,
Opp. Bank of Maharashtra,
Kurla West, Mumbai - 400 070. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Jamuna Devi Brijlal
Yadav
(widow of the deceased)
Adult, Indian inhabitant
2. Miss Rama Brijlal Yadav,
(Daughter of the deceased)
Adult, Indian inhabitant
3. Mr. Rohit Brijlal Yadav,
(son of the deceased)
Adult, Indian inhabitant,
Residing at Bechare Chawl,
Room No. 10, Kajupada pipeline,
Kurla West, Mumbai - 400 070.
and having permanent address at
Harakpur, Raj Bazaar Road,
Harakpur, Jaunpur,
Uttar Pradesh 222 125. ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
YELKAR
KSHITIJ Date:
YELKAR 2025.11.15
12:47:53 Seema 1/20
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 22:00:26 :::
Fa-390-2025.doc
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10733 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2025
1. Smt. Jamuna Devi Brijlal
Yadav
Age 51 years, Widow of the deceased
2. Rama Brijlal Yadav,
Age - 23 yrs. Daughter of the deceased
3. Rohit Brijlal Yadav
Age - 20 yrs. Son of the deceased
R/at Bechare Chawl. Room No. 10,
Kajupada, Pipeline, Kurla (W)
Mumbai - 400 070 ...Applicant
In the matter between
M/S Arjun Travels Mumbai
Through Proprietor -Mr.
Arjun Singh
Add : 170, L.B.S. Road,
Opposite Bank of Maharashtra,
Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400 070. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Jamuna Devi Brijlal Yadav
Age 51 yrs. Widow of the deceased
2. Rama Brijlal Yadav,
Age - 23 yrs. Daughter of the deceased
Seema 2/20
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 22:00:26 :::
Fa-390-2025.doc
3. Rohit Brijlal Yadav
Age - 20 yrs. Son of the deceased
R/at Bechare Chawl. Room No. 10,
Kajupada, Pipeline, Kurla (W)
Mumbai - 400 070 ...Respondents
*****
Mr. J. S. Kini a/w Mr. Advocate for the Applicant in IA
Aum Kini i/by Miss No. 16198 of 2024 and Appellant
Sapna Krishnappa in FA No. 390 of 2025
Mr. Vasant N. More Advocate for the Respondents
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th OCTOBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. While admitting the appeal on 24.02.2025, the following
substantial questions of law were framed:-
(i) Whether the death of deceased in the present case
arose in the course of employment of deceased with
the Appellant?
(ii) Whether the evidence on record show that the
deceased was found sleeping in the bus and not
driving the bus would lead to an inevitable conclusion
that the death had not occurred during the course of
Fa-390-2025.doc
employment?
(iii) Whether the evidence on record produced by the
Appellant establishes that the deceased on the said
date was not on duty and thus the accident has not
occurred in the course of employment?
2. Accordingly, I have heard learned Advocate Shri Kini for the
Appellant-Employer and learned Advocate Shri More for the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants/legal representatives of the
deceased-Brijlal Yadav. He was a driver by profession. In such an
appeal as per first proviso to sub-Section (1) to Section 30 of the
Employee's Compensation Act, the Appellant is to be heard only when
substantial question of law is involved. In nutshell, the appreciation of
evidence done on the basis of the facts cannot be looked into. What
can be looked into is perversity of the finding, if any. From the three
substantial questions of law, the core question is when the deceased-
Brijlal died on 16.12.2021 due to coronary artery disease, whether he
was in employment with the Appellant? And Whether the injury can
be due to accident?
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Keni made two submissions:-
Fa-390-2025.doc
(i) The deceased was temporary employee. Copy of the
muster card produced by claimant themselves show his
presence only from 01/12/2021 till 10.12.2021. So
admittedly, on 16.12.2021 he has not attended the duty.
(ii) Secondly, when his supervisor received information at 7.30
a.m. on 16.12.2021 that deceased-Brijlal was found in the
bus, he was dead. The supervisor could not understand
how Brijlal had entered the bus. Accordingly, supervisor
informed the Kurla Police Station and further formalities
were performed. According to him, there is lack of
evidence to show death was due to injury suffered due to
accident.
4. Whereas according to learned Advocate Mr. More, every
workman is entitled to receive compensation, whether he is permanent,
temporary or casual. Signing the muster is not the pre-requisite for
showing his presence. Admittedly, the deceased has not signed the
muster on 16.12.2021, but it is a fact, which is duly proved, that the
Brijlal was found in the bus owned by the Appellant on the date of the
incident.
Fa-390-2025.doc
Relevant provision
5. Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act casts an
obligation on the employer to pay for compensation. The following are
the pre-requisites.
(i) If personal injury is caused to an employee,
(ii) by an accident,
(iii) It has arisen out of employment and during the course of
the employment.
There are two exceptions as per proviso. Both are not applicable in this
case because there is death of the employee. They are :-
(a) If injury is for maximum period of three days, the
employee is not liable.
(b) If the employee is drunk or has willfully disobeyed or
willfully not used the safety devices, then the employer is
not liable.
However, death is an exception to these contingencies. Still the
Claimant has to prove that personal injury is caused due to accident
and it was during the course of and arising out of employment. This
phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of employment" have got
different meaning.
Fa-390-2025.doc
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mackinnon Mackenzie
and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak 1 has interpreted the
phrase "in the course of employment" as :-
"in the course of work which the workman is employed to do
and which is incidental to it".
Whereas the words "arising out of the employment" are understood to
mean that :-
"during the course of the employment, injury has
resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the
service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the
master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would
not otherwise have suffered."
7. In nutshell, the injury should be caused "while performing his
duties assigned to him or injuries caused while doing certain acts which
are incidental to the main acts, injuries are caused from some risk
incidental to the duties of the service ". The scope of the employment is
not strictly restricted "to the duties assigned to him " but "injury caused
while doing certain acts which are incidental or which are connected to
1 (1969) 2 SCC 607
Fa-390-2025.doc
the prescribed duties", then also it is covered. Now in this case the
deceased Brijlal was found in the bus as dead. He has not performed
any duty as a driver on 15.12.2021. He has not died while he was
driving the vehicle. The evidence adduced by both the parties needs to
be considered.
Evidence adduced
8. Admittedly, his wife-Jamuna Devi has not accompanied deceased
on the date of the accident. She got information subsequently.
Thereafter, she has deposed. It is on the basis of the information she
collected either from the Police or from other sources. Even the
employer-Arjun Singh also deposed on the basis of the information he
gathered from his sources.
9. There is a reason to believe that he was found dead in the bus
owned by the Appellant. The Appellant is partner of the firm which
plies bus at BKC, Kurla. The bus in question is MH-48-K-659. The
Claimant has tendered the following documents which are undisputed.
They are :-
(i) Copy of cause of the death certificate.
(ii) Letter by health department
Fa-390-2025.doc
(iii) Letter giving NOC for disposal of the dead body.
10. There cannot be any dispute that the casual connection in
between the death, the accident and the employment need to be
proved.
11. The judgments cited by both the parties needs to be referred. On
behalf of the Appellant, the following judgments are relied upon :-
(i) Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Trichur Vs. Ramanuja Match Industries2
(ii) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal and Others3
(iii) Dy. Chief Engineer (C) Ajni, Central Railway, Nagpur and Anr.
Vs. Laxmi (Smt.) wd/o Rajanna Kotpalliwar, Nagpur4
12. On behalf of the Respondents, the following judgments are
relied upon :-
(i) Manju Sarkar and Others Vs. Mabish Miah and Others5
(ii) General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking Bombay Vs.
Agnes6
(iii) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and Anr. Vs. New India
2 (1985) 1 SCC 218
3 (2005) 2 SCC 638
4 (2023) III CLR 723
5 (2014) ACJ 1927
6 (1963) (0) AIJEL - SC 9409
Fa-390-2025.doc
Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.7
(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Kumar
Sahoo8
(v) Leela Bai and Anr. Vs. Seema Chouhan and Anr. passed
by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 931 of 2019.
(vi) Associated Cargo Movers and Packers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Hanumant and Another9
(vii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore Vs.
Susheela (Smt.) and Ors.10
(viii) Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plan Engineer, Nellore and Anr.11
13. The outcome of any case depends on facts of that case and
provisions of law interpreted. "The employee is doing the specific work
assigned to him and it is only then, it can be said he is an employee ". It
is not proper interpretation. Because for doing the specific duty
assigned to an employee by employer, there are various incidental acts
required to be done earlier to fulfilling the primary duty and even
otherwise. The former and later act can be brought within the scope of
7 (2023) (4) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.)
8 (2004) II CLR 118
9 2020 ACJ 2100
10 (2004) I CLR 1025
11 2006 III CLR 438 (S.C.)
Fa-390-2025.doc
the employment, if they are connected to the principal act.
14. In case of Dy. Chief Engineer (C) Ajni, Central Railway, Nagpur
and Anr. (Supra) the deceased was an employee in Central Railway. He
was helper. He had gone for some official work to Mumbai and on his
way back to Nagpur, he died due to heart attack in a railway. There was
no evidence as to how the heart attack is aggravated by nature of duty.
(para nos. 16 and 17). The learned Judge emphasized on lacunae in the
evidence of the wife of the deceased in pointing out what type of work
allotted to the deceased and stress was part of his duty. The learned
Judge also emphasized on absence of medical evidence. The order
granting compensation by Commissioner was recalled. Learned
Counsel Mr. Keni also emphasized on too liberal interpretation of
social welfare legislation is not permissible.
15. In case of Regional Director Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Trichur (supra) deceased was partner in a firm and he
was paid wages. It is permissible as per the provisions of Indian
Partnership Act. The deceased was also an employee insured with
Employee State Insurance Corporation. The meaning of word
'employee' under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act
Fa-390-2025.doc
was considered (para no. 3). Whereas the provisions of the Partnership
Act was also considered in para no. 4. Finally, it is held a partner who
gets the wages does not fall within the meaning of 'employee'. While
giving this finding, it was observed : -
"We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have
liberal construction with a view to implementing the
legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has
a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to
travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the
statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to
those who are not covered by the scheme" (Para no. 10 ).
It is held "partner who is paid remuneration does not
involve change of his status and bring him even within the
definition of the employee".
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.
(supra) while dealing with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
also observes:-
"A beneficial statute, as is well known, may receive liberal
construction but the same cannot be extended beyond the
Fa-390-2025.doc
statutory scheme" (Para no. 39).
It is further observed :-
"'Sympathy' has no role to play, thus the Court cannot
interpret the provisions of the said Act ignoring the binding
decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court only by
way of sympathy to the workmen concerned."
17. The Court has twin responsibilities, one - to consider the object
of the Act and second to interpret the law so as to achieve object of the
Act, at the same time the Claimants need to satisfy the requirement of
the relevant Acts. The submission of learned Advocate Mr. Keni is
"simply because deceased has slept in the bus and died due to heart
attack, it is not sufficient to saddle his client with the responsibility of
the compensation."
18. In case of Leela Bai and Anr. (supra) the deceased was driver of
the public transport bus and who was supposed to remain in the bus
for 24 hours. The efficiency is affected, if he will go home every day,
after parking the bus. He died due to injuries sustained, when he was
in the bus depo after finishing the work. The doctrine of notional
extension was invoked and compensation was awarded.
Fa-390-2025.doc
19. Whereas in case of Associated Cargo Movers and Packers Pvt.
Ltd. (supra), it was case of daily wage earner. The relationship was
disputed on the basis of the evidence. The claim was allowed. A daily
wage earner was not expected to possess documentary evidence
regarding his employment and earnings (para no. 10). Learned
Advocate Mr. More laid emphasis on these observations.
20. In case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore Vs.
Susheela (Smt.) and Ors., the watchman was on night duty and he
suffered heart attack and died. Considering the evidence, it was held
that heart attack has aggravated due to night work. No evidence was
produced to substantiate on behalf of the employer that cardiac arrest
was not the result of stress and strain. (Para no. 11). Learned Advocate
Mr. More laid emphasis on these observations.
21. Whereas in case of Jyothi Ademma (supra), the employer is a
contributory cause or accelerated the death, it is presumed that the
death arose out of employment.
22. Whereas in case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking
Bombay Vs. Agnes (Supra), the BEST driver after finishing his duty, he
was left for home and he died. The majority view by the Hon'ble
Fa-390-2025.doc
Supreme Court was in favour of the deceased employee. It was case
wherein the employer has offered free travel to the employees while
attending the duty and while returning home. It was condition of the
service for the purpose of attaining the punctuality and efficiency.
23. Whereas in case of Manju Sarkar and Others (supra) the driver
has reached the destination and he was required to return back with the
truck. There was some interval in between loading goods and acts of
loading fresh goods. During that time he met with the road accident
and died. The doctrine of notional extension was invoked.
24. Whether the employee plays the particular act during the course
of employment or not, depends upon the facts of the particular case. A
vehicle driver may be required to go home after finishing his job or he
may be required to stay at the premises of employer only. Some time
after reaching to the destination, he is required to wait till goods are
again loaded. His responsibilities continue till he hands over the
custody of the vehicle to the employer.
25. In this case it has come on record that he was a temporary driver.
He was called on duty as and when regular driver is not available.
Admittedly, he has signed the muster up to 15.12.2021 only.
Fa-390-2025.doc
Admittedly, he was not called for driving on 16.12.2021. It is not clear
when he entered bus, he was found dead in the morning of 16.12.2021.
The wife can only say that husband has gone for duty. She may be not
aware whether her husband was entrusted with the duty of driving or
not. In fact, it was the responsibilities of the Appellant-Employer only
to explain how he entered the bus, when and under what
circumstances. I reject the contention of learned Advocate Mr. Kini
that in given set of facts, the deceased was not the employee. According
to him, casual employee is not covered. There is definition of an
Employee given in Section 2 (1)(dd). This was incorporated by way of
amendment Act No. 45 of 2009. By the same amendment, clause
number (n) is deleted. It contained definition of Workman. As per said
definition, causal worker was not covered within the meaning of
Workman. However, as per the same amendment, when clause (dd)
was incorporated phrase "casual worker" is deleted. Meaning thereby
casual worker can also claim compensation if he fulfills other
requirements. This is discussed in case of Marlo or Fab Gold Vs.
Arvind in First Appeal No. 440 of 2018, decided on 07.10.2022 by
the Delhi High Court.
Fa-390-2025.doc
Meaning of accident
26. Though the word 'accident' is used in Section 3 of the said Act, it
is not defined anywhere. Its ordinary meaning has to be understood.
'Accident' means something unexpected or unanticipated mishap. If
there is personal injury caused due to accident, it is covered. In this
case, death has resulted. As per evidence, cause of death was coronary
artery disease. It can be said to be an accident because death was not
anticipated.
27. Now the issue is whether learned Commissioner was justified in
holding that the death has arisen out an accident during the course of
an employment. It is a settled law that there should be casual
connection in between accident and personal injury and there should
be casual connection in between person injury accident and
employment. Just because death is caused during the course of
employment, it does not mean that the nature of work is the sole cause
for the death. Either it should be the sole or contributory cause for the
death. There has to be relationship in between the death and
employment. The death may be due to natural cause also. It is not
sufficient. The nature of duty should be of such kind which has
Fa-390-2025.doc
accelerated the possibility of death. It may happen that the employee
may be under stress or pressure due to nature of duty.
28. In this case the deceased was not driving but he was sleeping in
the bus. There is no evidence that he actually drove the bus. There is
absolutely no evidence to infer that driving has accelerated the death.
29. Learned Commissioner has only observed "in present peculiar
case the Applicant died in the bus due to heart attack but he was on
duty inside." This observation is incorrect and it does not meet the
ingredients of Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act. From
the judgments quoted above, it can only be said that the facts are
different. I am not agreeable to the observations in the case of United
India Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore (Supra). The burden was cast
upon the employer to prove that cardiac arrest was not the result of
stress and strain. This burden cannot be put on the employer.
30. The observations are made without evidence and by wrongly
interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of the EC Act. That is why,
there is perversity. That is why, I hold that there is an accident in the
course of the employment but the connection in between injury,
accident and employment is not proved. Hence, the findings need to
Fa-390-2025.doc
be set aside. This is not the case of application doctrine of notional
extension. I have already hold that the deceased was very much on
duty but there is no evidence of connecting death to employment. I
answer the susbtantial questions of law accordingly. If it is so the claim
has to be dismissed. The money privately paid is voluntary. There is no
question of its refund. At this stage, I inquired with learned Advocate
Shri Kini, whether any possibility of settlement is there, on
humanitarian ground. On the basis of the instructions, he submitted
that from the amount deposited before the Commissioner, his client
will consent for withdrawal of Rs. 5 Lakhs by way of lumpsum amount
and remaining amount be returned to his client. It is true the appeal is
dismissed on merits, but in view of such submission, I am inclined to
allow it. This is consented by learned Advocate Shri More after taking
instructions.
31. Hence the following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned
Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Judge,
Fa-390-2025.doc
First Labour Court, Mumbai is set aside.
(iii) The Claim application is dismissed.
(iv) Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(v) The Respondents are permitted to withdraw Rs. 5 Lakh
(Rupees Five Lakhs) from the Court of Commissioner,
Greater Mumbai as per the Rules.
(vi) The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may decide in whose name the
payment should be made and there should be consensus
amongst themselves to be reflected by some writing.
(vii) The remaining amount alongwith accrued interest be
returned to the Appellant as per the Rules.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
