Ram Niwas Gupta vs Bindu Singh & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 1795 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                  Date of Decision: 12th April, 2017
+    F.A.O. 348/2011& C.M. Appl. 14735/2011

RAM NIWAS GUPTA                                      ..... Appellant
                        Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate

                                Versus
BINDU SINGH & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Ankur Yadav, Advocate
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                          JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 30th May, 2011 of the Commissioner, Employee‟s Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.2,13,114/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the widow, minor son and parents of late Suresh Singh and they filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employee‟s Compensation on the ground that Suresh Singh was employed as a watchman with the appellant in his factory for 13 years. On 11th November, 2001, Suresh Singh went to the house of appellant as per instructions received from the wife of appellant to do some sweeping work at the appellant‟s house and thereafter slept in the appellant‟s house on the instructions of the appellant‟s wife. The deceased had to leave for his hometown in Ayodhaya on 12th November, 2001. On 14th November, 2001, the dead body of Suresh Singh was found on the second floor of the appellant‟s house whereupon the matter was reported to the police and FIR No.845 of 2001 was registered by the police.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the murder cannot be said to be an accident under the Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923. It was further pleaded that the deceased was not employed with the appellant. According to the appellant, the deceased was employed by the appellant‟s tenant, Ramesh Bansal upto 1998 and thereafter, by Pathan Khan but he continued to sleep in the appellant‟s factory at night and used to come to the appellant‟s house to do household work. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to and relied upon Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, (1969) 2 SCC 607, Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore (2006) 5 SCC 513, Rashida Haroon Kupurade v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 271, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668, D.S. Constructions Ltd. v. Smt. Raj Kali Devi, 2010 LLR 316, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Gyan Kaur , 2000 ACJ 100, Lakshmi v. Proprietor, Hotel Ajantha, 2002 ACJ 1465 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Srinivasa, 2007 ACJ 718.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents urged at the time of the hearing that the murder of Suresh Singh was an accident for the purpose of compensation under the Employee‟s Compensation Act. It was submitted that the deceased found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered only because of his employment with the appellant where he was murdered.

5. Whether the murder of the deceased, Suresh Singh was an "accident" arising out of and during the course of his employment? The law on this issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). The Supreme

Court drew distinction between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident. The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder simpliciter. However, if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:

"10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that "murder", as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In Rita Devi (supra), the deceased was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day, the auto rickshaw was parked in the rickshaw stand at Dimapur when some unknown passengers engaged the deceased for a journey. As to what happened on that day is not known. It was only on the next day that the police was able to recover the body of the deceased but the auto rickshaw in question was never traced out. The owner of the auto rickshaw claimed compensation from the insurance company for the

loss of auto rickshaw. The heirs of the deceased claimed compensation for the death of the driver on the ground that the death occurred on account of accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle. The Apex Court held that the murder to be an accidental murder. Para 14 is quoted below:-

"14. Applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the autorickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare-paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the autorickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the autorickshaw then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the autorickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the autorickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the autorickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the autorickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the autorickshaw."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In Rita Devi (supra), the Supreme Court relied on Challis v. London and South Western Railway Company, (1905) 2 KB 154 and Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689 to draw the distinction between the felonious act which accidentally results in death and a murder simpliciter. Paras 11 to 13 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

"11. In Challis v. London and South Western Rly. Co. [(1905) 2 KB 154 : 74 LJKB 569 : 93 LT 330 (CA)] the Court of Appeal held where an engine driver while driving a train under a bridge was killed by a stone wilfully dropped on the train by a boy from the bridge, that his injuries were caused by an accident. In the said

case, the Court rejecting an argument that the said incident cannot be treated as an accident held:

"The accident which befell the deceased was, as it appears to me, one which was incidental to his employment as an engine driver, in other words it arose out of his employment. The argument for the respondents really involves the reading into the Act of a proviso to the effect that an accident shall not be deemed to be within the Act, if it arose from the mischievous act of a person not in the service of the employer. I see no reason to suppose that the legislature intended so to limit the operation of the Act. The result is the same to the engine driver, from whatever cause the accident happened; and it does not appear to me to be any answer to the claim for indemnification under the Act to say that the accident was caused by some person who acted mischievously."

12. In the case of Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn [(1910) 2 KB 689 : 80 LJKB 84 : 103 LT 178 (CA)] where a cashier, while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employers' workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held:

"That the murder was an „accident‟ from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose „out of‟ an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk, and consequently that the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. In this case the Court followed its earlier judgment in the case of Challis [(1905) 2 KB 154 : 74 LJKB 569 : 93 LT 330 (CA)] . In the case of Nisbet [(1910) 2 KB 689 : 80 LJKB 84 : 103 LT 178 (CA)] the Court also observed that „it is contended by the employer that this was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word "accident" negatives the idea of intention‟. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. I think it was an accident from the point of view of Nisbet, and that it makes no difference whether the pistol shot was deliberately fired at Nisbet or whether it was intended for somebody else and not for Nisbet."

13. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nisbet case [(1910) 2 KB 689 : 80 LJKB 84 : 103 LT 178 (CA)] was followed by the

majority judgment by the House of Lords in the case of Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly[1914 AC 667 : 83 LJPC 220 : 111 LT 305 (HL)]."

8. In Rita Devi (supra), the Supreme Court compared the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen‟s Compensation Act and held that the object of both the Acts was to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents and the judicial interpretation of the word "death" in both the Acts is the same. Para 15 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"15. Learned counsel for the respondents contended before us that since the Motor Vehicles Act has not defined the word "death" and the legal interpretations relied upon by us are with reference to the definition of the word "death" in the Workmen's Compensation Act the same will not be applicable while interpreting the word "death" in the Motor Vehicles Act because according to her, the objects of the two Acts are entirely different. She also contends that on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the autorickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word "death" in the Workmen's Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the

interpretation of the word "death" in the Motor Vehicles Act also."

(Emphasis supplied) Delhi High Court

9. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kanshi Ram, 2006 ACJ 492 (Delhi High Court), a truck going from Delhi to Hyderabad went missing. The police during investigation, located the truck and found that some of the goods being transported in the truck were stolen and the driver was murdered. The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen‟s Compensation which was allowed. The insurance company challenged the order in appeal. Following Rita Devi (supra), Madan B. Lokur, J. as he then was, held the murder to be an accident. The Delhi High Court cited with approval the three English cases, namely, Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn (supra), Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly 1914 A.C. 667 and Clover, Clayton and Company, Ltd. v. Hughes 1910 A.C. 242. The Delhi High Court also cited the judgments of other High Courts, namely, Bhagubai v. Central Railway, A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105, Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department Narsimhapur, 1974 (2) L.L.N. 204, Varkeyachan v. Thomman, 1979 (1) L.L.N. 477, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Philo, 1996 (3) L.L.N. 116 and Parle Products Ltd. v. Subir Mukherjee, 2001 (I) L.L.J. 964. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"3. Sohan Lal was working as a driver with M/s. Manoj Roadlines. As a part of his duties, he was taking a truck from Delhi to Hyderabad alongwith a second driver Jeet Singh. It appears that somewhere in Rajasthan, he was murdered. The truck was missing for a few days and when the police located it during investigation, it was revealed that some of the goods

that were being transported in the truck were stolen. Investigations also revealed that Jeet Singh had committed the murder.

xxx xxx xxx

7. What is an accident, and when can it be said that a murder is an accident?

8. Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn [1910 (2) K.B.D. 689], is a leading case on this subject. A cashier was travelling in a train with a large sum of money intended for payment to his employer's workmen. He was robbed and murdered and the Court of appeal held the murder was an accident from the point of view of the cashier and, therefore, it was an accident within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

9. Similarly, in Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly [1914 A.C. 667], an assistant master at an industrial school was assaulted and killed by two pupils while he was performing his duties. The House of Lords held that for the purpose of the same statute, his death was caused by an accident. Viscount Haldane, L.C. pointed out that the meaning of the term "accident" would vary according as the context varies, and as instances mentioned criminal jurisprudence where crime and accident are sharply divided by the presence or absence of mens rea and the law of marine insurance where the maxim: In jure non remota cause sect proximo spectator (in law the proximate, and not the remote, cause is to be regarded) applies.

10. In Clover, Clayton and Company, Ltd. v. Hughes [1910 A.C. 242], Lord Loreburn, L.C. said:

"What, then, is an „accident‟? It has been defined in this House as an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event, which is not expected or designed."

11. Our Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd., [(2000) 5 SCC 113], dealt with a case in which the driver of an auto rickshaw was murdered by his fare paying passengers. The passengers intended to steal the auto rickshaw, for which they had to eliminate the driver. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of the driver was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the auto rickshaw.

12. In Bhagubai v. Central Railway [A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105]

(Bombay High Court), the deceased was stabbed to death while he was on his way to join duty. It was not disputed that the death was a result of an accident or that it arose in the course of his employment. The dispute was whether it arose out of the employment of the deceased. The Division Bench held at page 404 as follows:

"Now, it is clear that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The authorities have clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril, a causal connection is established between the employment and the accident. In this particular case what is established is that the employee while in the course of his employment found himself in a spot where he was assaulted and stabbed to death. He was in the place where he was murdered by reason of his employment. He would have been safely in his bed but for the fact that he had to join duty, and he had to pass this spot in order to join his duty. Therefore, the connection between the employment and accident is established. There is no evidence in this case that the employee in any way added to the peril. There is no evidence that he was stabbed because the assailant wanted to stab him and not anybody else."

Thereafter, at page 405-406, it was held as under:

"Once the peril is established, it is for the employer then to establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself, or that the peril was not a general peril but a peril personal to the employee. It is because of this that the authorities have made it clear that the causal connection between the accident and the employment which the applicant has to establish is not a remote or ultimate connection but a connection which is only proximate. Once that proximate connection is established the applicant has discharged the burden, and in this case the proximate connection between the employment and the injury is the fact that the deceased was at a particular spot in the course of his employment and it was at that spot that he was assaulted and done to death."

13. In Smt.Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department 9 Buildings and Road), Narsimhapur [1974 (2) L.L.N. 204], a chowkidar in the Public Works Department was murdered while on duty. One of the questions that arose was whether his murder could be said to be an accident. Relying upon Nisbet, it was held that the murder was an unlooked for mishap or untoward event which was not expected or designed. The learned Judge held that word "accident" excludes the idea of wilful and intentional act but as explained in Nisbet, "the phrase ought to be held to include murder as it was an accidental happening so far as the workman was concerned.

14. In Varkeyachan v. Thomman [1979 (1) L.L.N. 477], was a case in which an employee engaged to do odd jobs dies as a result of stab injuries received while on duty. The Division Bench held the injury to be an accident sustained by the deceased in the course of his employment.

15. The question that arose for consideration in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Philo [1996 (3) L.L.N. 116], was whether the killing of a workman while he was in the course of his employment, by an unknown person, can be considered as death caused as a result of an accident arising out of his employment? In this case the deceased was the driver of a taxi. He had taken some tourist out of town. He did not return from the tour and it was reported that he was killed and somebody stole the taxi. The Division Bench answered the question in the affirmative and held in Paras. 7 and 8 of the report:

"7.... But for the engagement as the driver of the taxi,

the deceased would not have been in the place and in the situation where he was at the time when he was killed. The casual connection is complete and we have no doubt, in our mind to hold that the accident which has resulted in the death of the workman has arisen out of the employment.

8. The contention that the claimants have failed to discharge their burden to prove the causal relationship between the accident and the employment is only to be rejected in the light of the observations contained in Bhagubai v. General Manager, Central Railway [A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105] (vide supra), with which we respectfully agree."

16. Parle Products, Ltd. v. Subir Mukherjee [2001 (I) L.L.J. 964], was a case in which an employee was travelling from Calcutta to Puri by train to attend an official conference. On the way, he was assaulted and thrown out of the Railway compartment. He sustained multiple injuries including a head injury and became permanently physically disabled. The Division Bench held that there had been an accident, and that the accident had a causal connection with the employment inasmuch as the workman was travelling in the train to attend a conference organized by the employer in terms of a direction issued in that regard to him. Thus, it was held that the accident occurred in the course of his employment.

xxx xxx xxx

21. No evidence was led by the appellant to suggest that the dominant purpose of Jeet Singh was to kill Sohan Lal and not to commit theft. Under the circumstances, this argument is not at all available to learned counsel for the appellant."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. In DTC v. Shakeela Parveen, 2014 ACJ 688 (Delhi High Court), the driver of a DTC bus was murdered on duty. The application for compensation was allowed by the Claims Tribunal which was challenged by DTC. G.P. Mittal, J., following Rita Devi (supra) and Kanshi Ram (supra), held the murder to be an accident and dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"11. The present case is squarely covered by the report of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi and a judgment of this Court in Kanshi Ram.

12. Turning to the facts of this case, admittedly the robbers wanted to rob the passengers. There was an alarm that pocket of a passenger has been picked. Possibly either there was some resistance or an objection to the act of robbery by the deceased which led to his stabbing by the robbers. Thus, the act of committing robbery was the felonious act intended by the robbers and the act of stabbing or causing death was originally not intended and the same was caused only in furtherance of the act of robbery. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the death of Zamil in the instant case was accidental arising out of the use of bus No. DL-1P-9753."

11. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shehzadi Yasmeen, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4244 (Delhi High Court), there was altercation between the drivers of the two buses whereupon the driver of one bus crushed the other driver under his bus. The application for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed. Jayant Nath, J., following Rita Devi (supra), dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"14. The above facts show that it does not appear to be a case of murder simplicitor. There was some dispute pertaining to the time of running of the other bus. The bus driver of the offending vehicle was often deliberately trying to delay his bus and this resulted in a loss of passengers to the deceased. To sort this out, the deceased confronted the driver of the offending vehicle. He appears to have taken it amiss and appears to have decided to teach the deceased a lesson. It appears that the intention of the driver was only to teach the deceased a lesson. While trying to teach a lesson to the deceased, his act resulted in the death. The act of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be termed to be a case of murder simiplicitor. It was neither pre-planned nor pre-meditated. The facts and circumstances of the death of the deceased show it is covered under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act."

(Emphasis supplied)

Madhya Pradesh High Court

12. In Satiya v. S.D.O. Public Works Department, 1974 ACJ 431 (M.P. High Court) (DB), the Chowkidar of PWD was murdered by the miscreants whereupon his legal representatives filed application for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. The Labour Court rejected the application holding that the deceased was not a workman. The challenge to the order came up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Division Bench held the deceased to be the workman and the murder to be an accident. The Division Bench rejected the argument that the deceased was not employed for the purpose of employer‟s trade and business and held that the deceased was "workman" under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"4. The question that falls to be considered is: Was the deceased a workman? Sub-section (n) of section 2(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act defines work-man as below:--

""workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is--

(i) ............

(ii) employed...on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union...; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them.

(2) The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local authority or of any department acting on behalf of the Government shall, for the purposes of this

Act, unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to be the trade or business of such authority or department."

5. The definition has, therefore, to be read along with Schedule II and the relevant items that concerns us is entry No.

(viii) of Schedule II which reads as under:--

"The following persons are workmen within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is............

(viii) employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of

(a) any building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the appendix of the roof or...

6. From the above definition it would appear that a workman is one who is employed for the purpose of employer's trade or business. The deceased was undoubtedly employed by the respondents but could it be said that the activities of the Public Works Department was trade or business. It is only if the answer was in the affirmative that the deceased would come within the definition of a "workman". The Public Works Department at Narsimhapur was engaged in such activities as constructing buildings, roads, bridges and other public works and also to maintain and repair them. The work done by the department was such as could normally be entrusted to a private contractor but the department either to maintain the standard of work or the work done departmentally having proved economical to them were maintaining an establishment analogous to a business.

7. Referring to the activities of the Government in the field of productive industry, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Secretary Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union v. The Management, it was observed--

"The expansion of the Governmental or Municipal activities in fields of productive industry is a feature of all developing welfare State. This is considered necessary because it leads to welfare without exploitation of workmen and makes the production of material goods and services cheaper by eliminating profits. Government and the local authorities act as individuals do and the policy of the Act is to put Government and local authorities on a par with private individuals. But Government cannot be

regarded as an employer within the Act if the operations are governmental or administrative in character."

8. The department could not be said to be engaged in operations that were governmental or administrative in character. By section 2(2) of the Act, it is clear that the exercise and performance of the powers of any department acting on behalf of the Government shall, for the purposes of the Act, unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to be the trade or business of the department. The definition clearly does not exclude workmen employed by the departments of the Government. No contrary intention has been pointed out as would exclude an employee under the Public Works Department from the definition when it satisfied the order conditions of the definition. On the contrary, from the Schedule II it would appear that a person engaged in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of any building of a specified height could always be considered a workman. The department was required to keep an office from where amongst other businesses, their activities could be conducted. The deceased was employed as a Chowkidar in this office and he was required to be present there even during the night. This was for the purpose of protecting the property and the office from unwarranted interference from tresspassers, burglars and from other elements. The office kept by the Public Works Department was for the purpose of their trade and business. We hold that the deceased was employed for the purpose of departmental business as envisaged in the definition of "workman" under section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

9. Under item (viii) of schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act unless the employment was in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of any building as specified in clause (a) beneath it, he would not be a workman. The trial Court considered the case only in so far as the question whether or not the deceased was employed in the construction, repair or demolition of the building was concerned. It lost sight of the fact that if the employee was engaged for maintenance of the building then too he would be a workman within the meaning of clause (n) of section 2(1) of the Act. The word, "maintain" has been explained in Black's law Dictionary, Fourth edition, thus:"Maintain, as its structure indicates, signifies literally to hold by the hand. It is

variously defined as acts of repairs and other acts to prevent a decline, lapse of cessation from existing state or condition; bear the expense of; carry or commence; continue; furnish means for subsistence or existence of; hold; hold or keep in an existing state or condition; hold; or preserve in any particular state or condition; keep; keep from change; keep from falling; declining, or ceasing; keep in existence or continuance; keep in force keep in good order; keep in proper condition; keep in repair; keep up; preserve; preserve from lapse, decline, failure, or cessation; provide for; rebuild; repair; replace; supply with means of support; supply of what is needed; support; sustain; uphold. Negatively stated, it is defined as not to lose or surrender; not to suffer or fail or decline.

xxx xxx xxx To "maintain an airport" is to keep it in state of efficiency for the furnishing of those facilities and the rendition of those services which air transportation and communication demand. Concordia-Arrow Flying Service Corporation v. City of Concordia.

10. The functions of a watchman are such as enjoin him to maintain the building inasmuch as he is required to keep it going and to preserve it against unwarranted interferences from unauthorised persons and from cattle nuisance. He was also required to keep it clean by sweeping the premises and by dusting it. He was thus engaged in the upkeep of the office for the purpose of keeping it in efficient state and his services were indispensable for maintenance of the office. It has been pointed out that even some cash was kept in the office and, therefore, he was there to guard it. All these services would undoubtedly show that he was engaged in the maintenance of the office. He had not been murdered for any private reasons but he suffered death while trying to maintain the building in the course of his duty. In our opinion, the services rendered by him would be for the maintenance of the office and building and thus construed, he was a "workman" as defined under the Act and we hold so."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Bai Jain, 2007 ACJ 1126 (M.P. High Court) (DB), the cleaner of a truck was murdered by unknown persons. The application for compensation was allowed by

Commissioner, Workmen‟s Compensation which was challenged by the Insurance Company. The Division Bench headed by Arun Mishra, J., as he then was, following Rita Devi (supra) dismissed the appeal.

Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"14. Thus, we find that deceased was on the spot as the truck met with an accident. He was performing the duty to look after the goods and the truck, thus accidental murder took place in the course of employment. In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), the Apex Court has held thus...

xxx xxx xxx In view of the aforesaid decision, we find that deceased was performing duty. There was close nexus of murder and performance of his duty in course of employment. He died in the course of employment. Thus, we find that order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding compensation is proper."

Calcutta High Court

14. In Parle Products Limited v. Sri Subir Mukherjee, (2001) ILLJ 964 Cal., (Calcutta High Court) (DB), an employee travelling in the train to attend a conference, was assaulted and thrown out of the railway compartment which resulted in permanent disability. The employee filed application for compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act which was allowed. The employer came in appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench headed by S.B. Sinha, J., as he then was, following Rita Devi (supra) held the murder to be an accident and the accident had a casual connection with the employment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"1.This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act raises a question as to whether an employee who had suffered injury while travelling in a train at the hands of some hooligans is entitled to compensation from the employer under the Act.

2. The claimant-respondent was working as a Territory Supervisor and was looking after the sales of the products of the appellant-company. He was directed to attend a conference at Puri on 27.6.1998. The said conference was organised by the appellant. The claimant-respondent along with his other colleagues left Calcutta by Jagannath Express for Puri in the night of 26.6.1998 to attend the conference but during the journey he was assaulted and thrown out of the Railway compartment as a result whereof he sustained multiple injuries including head injury. The petitioner as a result of such injuries became permanently physically disabled. He was only 23 years old at the relevant time and his monthly salary was Rs. 2337/- at the time of accident.

xxx xxx xxx

9. One of the tests for determining as to whether an accident could be held to have arisen out of employment is that the workman is in fact employed on or performing the duties of his employment at the time of accident. Another test would be that the accident occurred at or about the place where the performance of his duties required him to be present. It is not a case where the accident involved a risk common to all humanity and did not involve any peculiar or exceptional danger resulting from the nature of the employment or where the accident was the result of an added peril to which the workman, by his own conduct, exposed himself, which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment.

xxx xxx xxx This aspect of the matter has also been considered recently by Gauhati High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabita Gope, reported in 2000 Lab. I.C. 669.

xxx xxx xxx In this case, the following factors are admitted: (1) that there had been an accident, (2) the accident had a casual connection with the case of the employer inasmuch as the respondent was travelling in the train to attend a conference organised by the appellant in terms of a direction issued in that regard to him."

Kerala High Court

15. In Varkeyachan v. Thomman, 1979 ACJ 319, (Kerala High

Court) (DB), a workman died of stab injuries suffered at the gate of the appellant‟s sawmill where he was employed to do odd jobs. The application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was allowed. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the award and held that the employer was liable to pay compensation. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"1. Respondent 1's son Varkey was a workman under the appellant. On 3 May 1971, he died of stab injuries he received at the gate of the appellant's sawmill where he was employed to do odd jobs. That day there was some labour unrest in the mill. Some of Varkey's workfellows refusing to work had assembled at the gate from the morning. They were shouting slogans and the situation was tense. Varkey was sent out to a nearby tea shop in the first instance to fetch two glasses of tea for Anto and Vakkachan, the son and the nephew of the appellant, who were inside the mill and a second time to return the tea glasses. While he was coming back from the tea shop after returning the glasses and was on his way towards the road on a motor cycle. The motor cycle dashed against one of the workmen assembled at the gate, one Pappan. He fell down. Varkey was at the gate when Pappan fell down and was helping Pappan to rise up when Vakkachan's stab fell on Varkey. Vakkachan had by this time come to the gate whereupon a scuffle ensued between him on the one side and the striking workmen on the other.

2. ... It is by now well-settled that the term "accident" for the purpose of the law relating to compensation for personal injuries sustained by workman and the employer's liability in that behalf, includes any injury which is not designed by the workman himself, and it is of no consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same. In Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn [(1910) 2 K.B. 689], where a cashier travelling in a train with a large sum of money intended for payment to his employer's workmen was robbed and murdered, the Court of Appeal held the murder was an accident from the point of cashier and, therefore, it was an accident within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Similarly in Trim Joint District School Board v. Kelly [1914 A.C. 667], where an assistant

master at an industrial school was assaulted and killed by two of the pupils while the assistant master was performing his duties, the House of Lords held that his death was caused by an accident for the purpose of the same statute. Viscount Haldane, L.C., pointed out that the meaning of the term "accident" would vary according as the context varies, and as instances mentioned criminal jurisprudence where crime and accident are sharply divided by the presence or absence of mens rea and the law of marine insurance where the maxim: In jure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur (In law he proximate, and not the remote, cause is to be regarded) applies. The learned Lord Chancellor said:

"My Lords, if we had to consider the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act as res integra, I should be of opinion that the principle was one more akin to insurance at the expense of the employer of the workman against accidents arising out of and in the course of his employment than to the imposition on the employer of liability for anything for which he might reasonably be made answerable on the ground that he ought to have foreseen and prevented it. I think that the fundamental conception is that of insurance in the true sense. And if so it appears to me to follow that in giving a meaning to „accident,‟ in its context in such a scheme one would look naturally to the proxima causa, of which Lord Herschell and Lord Barnwell spoke in connexion with marine insurance, the kind of event which is unlooked for and sudden, and causes personal injury, and is limited only by this, that it must arise out of and in the course of the employment. Behind this event it appears to us that the purpose of the statute renders it irrelevant to search for explanations or remoter causes, provided the circumstances bring it within the definition. No doubt the analogy of the insurance cases must not, as Lord Lindley points out in his judgment in Fenton v. Thorley [1903 A.C. 443], be applied so as to exclude from the cause of injury the accident that really caused it, merely because an intermediate condition of the injury -- in that case a rupture arising from an effort voluntarily made to move defective machine -- has intervened. If, so far as the workman is concerned, unexpected misfortune happens

and injury is caused which the statute seems to me to impose in the interest of the employer, who cannot escape from being a statutory insurer, is that the risk should have arisen out of and in the course of the employment."

3. The findings of facts entered leave no room for doubt that Varkey sustained the stab injury while he was returning to the mill from the tea shop after executing his second errand of giving back the glasses at the tea shop. The accident arose in the course of Varkey's employment.

4. The further question is whether the accident arose out of his employment. The Supreme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak [(1969) 2 SCC 607 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1906], approvingly referred to the test laid down by Lord Summer in Lancashire and Yorkshire v. Highley [1917 A.C. 352], as the proper test for determining the question whether an accident arose out of the employment. That test is as follows:

"There is, however, in my opinion one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury."

5. Apply the above test. The querulous workmen were at the gate from the morning. It was hazardous for anyone to be there where a tense situation prevailed. Yet his employment obliged Varkey to pass and repass that area. The accident arose out of his employment.

6. It is argued that Varkey exposed himself to an added

peril by an imprudent act, namely, by helping Pappan to rise up from the ground. Varkey was at the place of occurrence properly in the course of his employment. To help a person to get up from the ground where he had fallen cannot be said to be an unreasonable act on the part of the person so rendering help. That is, perhaps what is expected of any fellowmen in the ordinary course of affairs, and it is not possible to dichotomize one's behaviour into workman's behaviour and fellowman's behaviour in such situations. There is nothing to suggest that Varkey participated in the melee. On the other hand the facts found by the Commissioner and narrated in the beginning of this judgment indicate that he was a loyal workman who was working on the fateful day. There is no merit in the argument that he did an imprudent act nor is there any material on which it could be found that he added to his peril by helping Pappan to get up."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Philo, 1996 ACJ 849 (Kerala High Court) (DB), a taxi was stolen and the taxi driver was killed. The application for compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act was allowed. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court held the murder to be an accident which arose out of the employment of the employee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"1.The short question arising for consideration in this appeal filed under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the Act) is whether the killing of a workman while he was in the course of his employment, by an unknown person, can be considered as death caused as a result of an accident arising out of his employment?

xxx xxx xxx

3. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has not pursued the contentions taken up the appellant as second opposite party before the Commissioner to the effect that the incident in question is not an accident and even if it is an accident it is not one which arose in the course of the employment. We think that the learned counsel for the

appellant was justified in not pursuing them in the light of the decision of this Court in Varkeyachan v. Thomman [1979 (1) L.L.N. 477], where a Division Bench of this Court has held that "the term accident for the purpose of the law relating to compensation for personal injuries sustained by workmen and the employer's liability in that behalf, includes any injury which is not designed by the workman himself and it is of no consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same". In the light of the admitted fact that the deceased was engaged as a driver by the first opposite party and that he was killed while he was in the course of performing his duties as a driver, there may not be any justification in law to contend that the accident has not occurred in the course of his employment.

4. As regards the question to be considered in the appeal it was contended that the accident cannot be considered as one which arose out of the employment and as such neither the first opposite party nor the appellant can be legally made liable to pay compensation to the applicants under the Act It is in evidence that the deceased had accepted the offer of the tourists to occupy the room hired by them to spend the night. It was while the deceased was in the room occupied by the tourists that he was killed It was a case of cold blooded murder committed with the motive of stealing the car. In a case like the one on hand, the claimants must show that the injury caused was due to the fact that the workman was specially exposed to such peril because of his employment or that the injury was due to some special risk that the workman had to undergo. There was no such evidence in the case. The burden of proof primarily rests on the workman or the claimants to prove that the accident arise out of the employment. In the absence of any evidence to show that the injury caused was due to the fact that the workman was specially exposed to the peril because of his employment or that the injury was due to some special risk that the workman had to undergo, the Commissioner ought to have rejected the claim. The words "arising out of employment" should be understood to mean that "during the course of the employment injury has resulted form 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." It was submitted that

there was no causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The immediate cause which put the deceased to the peril in this case was the acceptance of the offer by the deceased to share the room occupied by the tourists and as such the deceased should be held to be responsible for placing himself in this situation in which he has suffered the fatal injuries. On that ground also the claim is liable to be rejected.

5. In the decision reported in Varkeyachan v. Thomman [1979 (1) L.L.N. 477] (vide supra), referred to already by us, this Court has accepted the test laid down by Lord Summer in Lancanshire and Yorkshire Railway v. Highly [1917 A.C. 352] and approved by the Supreme Court in the M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak [(1969) 2 SCC 607 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1906], in the case of a claim by the legal representatives of a deceased workman which we may quote here usefully:

"There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury."

6. Dealing with identically similar contentions raised in a case where compensation was claimed by the legal representatives of a deceased workman, Chagla, C.J., speaking for a Bench of the Bombay High Court has laid down the law pithily in the following terms:

"Now it is clear that there must be a casual connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the

employment of the deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the prominent cause and not any remote cause. The authorities have clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of, his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a casual connection is established between the incident and the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be, something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril, a casual connection is established between the employment and the accident." (Bhagubia v. General Manager, Central Railway [A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105].

As regards the burden of proof lying on the applicant, the learned Judge has observed thus in the same decision:

"........... Once the peril is established, it is for the employer then to establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself, that he added or extended the peril, or that the peril was not a general peril but a peril personal to the employee........" Similar views have been expressed by the Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts in Public Works Department Bhopal v. Kausa [A.I.R. 1966 M.P. 297] and Kartick Chandra v. State [A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 127].

7. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions with which we respectfully agree, to the facts of this case, we are convinced that the view taken by the Commissioner in this case is fully justifiable. But for the engagement as the driver of the taxi, the deceased would not have been in the place and in the situation where he was at the time when he was killed. The casual connection is complete and we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the accident which has resulted in the death of the workman has arisen out of the employment.

8. The contention that the claimants have failed to discharge their burden to prove the causal relationship between the accident and the employment is only to be rejected in the light of the observations contained in Bhagubai v. General Manager, Central Railway [A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105] (vide supra), with which we respectfully agree."

17. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thankamma, (2011) 3 KLT 466 (Kerala High Court) (DB), the driver of a jeep was attacked by a passenger which resulted in the fatal injuries. The claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed by the Claims Tribunal. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court, following Rita Devi (supra), upheld the award of the Claims Tribunal holding that the murder to be an accidental murder arising out of the use of the vehicle. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"1. Short question which arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is whether a murder committed in a motor vehicle can be termed as "an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle", as contemplated under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act."

xxx xxx xxx

9. ...The Apex Court held therein that it was an accidental murder arising out of the use of the vehicle and that the claimants were entitled to compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw. Applying the principles laid down in the above decision, in the facts of the present case it has to be held that the murder was not a pre-planned murder and that the same was only an accidental murder. Deceased Vasudevan was the driver of the vehicle in question. He stopped the vehicle due to mechanical defect and an altercation ensued between the deceased and Sunny and Sunny suddenly stabbed deceased Vasudevan. Thus it can be seen that Sunny had no intention to cause the death of Vasudevan. That being so, it has to be taken that it is an accidental murder and not an intentional one. It follows that the murder of the deceased Vasudevan was due to an accident arising out of the

use of the vehicle. That being so, the Tribunal is rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation as claimed by them."

(Emphasis supplied) Bombay High Court

18. In Bhagubai v. General Manager, Central Railway, ILR 1954 Bom 1051, (Bombay High Court) (Division Bench) the deceased workman employed in the Central Railway left his quarters before midnight to join his duty and was stabbed by some unknown persons. An application filed by the widow of the deceased claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was dismissed. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and held that the deceased died of injury by accident arising out of employment. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"This is a rather unusual case arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The facts briefly are that the deceased was a Mukadam employed in the Central Railway at Kurla Station and he lived in the railway quarters adjoining the Kurla Railway 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 December 20, 1952, the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty and immediately thereafter he was stabbed by some unknown person. It is not disputed by the Railway Company that the deceased died as a result of an accident, nor is it disputed that the accident arose in the course of his employment. But what is disputed is that the accident did arise out of the employment of the deceased. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and therefore dismissed the claim made by the applicant who is the widow of the deceased. She has now come in appeal. Now, it is clear that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The authorities

have clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril a causal connection is established between the employment and the accident. In this particular case what is established is that the employee while in the course of his employment found himself in a spot where he was assaulted and stabbed to death. He was in the place where he was murdered by reason of his employment. He would have been safely in his bed but for the fact that he had to join duty, and he had to pass this spot in order to join his duty. Therefore the connection between the employment and the accident is established. There is no evidence in this case that the employee in any way added to the peril. There is no evidence that he was stabbed because the assailant wanted to stab him and not anybody else.

xxx xxx xxx Both these decisions are really based upon the leading English case reported in Thom or Simpson v. Sinclair[1917] A.C. 127.] . In that case a woman employed by a fish-curer, while working in a shed belonging to her employer, was injured by the fall of a wall which was being built on the property of an adjoining proprietor, with the result that the roof of the shed collapsed and the woman was buried under the wreckage, and the House of Lords held that the accident arose out of her employment, and the principle is well stated by Lord Shaw at page 142:

"In short, my view of the statute is that the expression „arising out of the employment‟ is not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression, in my

opinion, applies to the employment as such--to its nature, its conditions its obligations, and its incidents. If by reason of any of these the workman is brought within the zone of special danger and so injured or killed, it appears to me that the broad words of the statute „arising out of the employment‟ apply. If the peril which he encountered was not an added peril produced by the workman himself, as in the cases of Plumb and Barnes in this House, then a case for compensation under the statute appears to arise."

Viscount Haldane also puts the case very simply at page 136:

"If, therefore, the language in question were to be construed upon principle and apart from authorities I should be prepared to hold that it was satisfied where, as here, it has been established as a fact that it was as arising out of her employment that the appellant was under the roof by the falling of which she was injured."

To apply that test to the facts of this case, it arose out of the employment of the deceased that he found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered.

xxx xxx xxx ...In our opinion, once the applicant has established that the deceased was at a particular place and he was there because he had to be there by reason of his employment, and he further establishes that because he was there he met with an accident, he has discharged the burden which the law places upon him. The law does not place an additional burden upon the applicant to prove that the peril which the employee faced and the accident which arose because of that peril was not personal to him but was shared by all the employees or the members of the public. Mr. Desai would have an applicant prove not only that the employee was murdered, but that in murdering him the murderer had no personal motive against the murdered man but he would have murdered any other employee of the Railway Company as well. We refuse to hold that the law casts any such intolerable burden upon the applicant. Once the peril is established it is for the employer then to establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself, that he added or extended the peril, or that the peril was not a general peril but a peril personal to the

employee. It is because of this that the authorities have made it clear that the causal connection between the accident and the employment which the applicant has to establish is not a remote or ultimate connection, but a connection which is only proximate. Once that proximate connection is established the applicant has discharged the burden, and in this case the proximate connection between the employment and the injury is the fact that the deceased was at a particular spot in the course of his employment and it was at that spot that he was assaulted and done to death."

19. In State of Maharashtra v. Arti, 2008 ACJ, 1406 (Bombay High Court), an employee killed his superior during an altercation in the office. The application for compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act was allowed. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"17. Whether murder tantamounts to an accident: The term "accident" is not defined in the Workmen‟s Compensation Act. It is also not defined in the General Clauses Act. The learned Judge has therefore, rightly considered the definition of an accident taking into account a dictionary meaning of the term. Black‟s Law Dictionary defines "accident" under Workmen‟s Compensation Act as an unforeseen untoward incident which was not reasonably anticipated. The deceased workman could not and did not contemplate his murder. It was an unforeseen and untoward happening.

18. The incident ended in a criminal prosecution. The assaulter was convicted of murder. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Sessions at Solapur could neither be contemplated nor avoided by the victim. The workmen‟s Compensation Act is a social legislation. It was enacted to give succour to workmen against injuries caused by accident. The object of the Act does not specify the applicability of the Act only in case of accidents by machines. The injury in this case was caused by the act by another human being. It proved fatal. Hence, it tantamount to murder qua the assailant. The injury qua the workman is by an accidental act to which he succumbed. Consequently a murder committed upon a

workman has to be taken as an accident.

19. The Judgment and order of the Court of Sessions, Solapur is the pan of record. It has been produced in evidence before the Commissioner and Judge in the claim of respondent No. 1. It has therefore, to be read in evidence. Paragraph 14 of the Judgment shows that on 30th March, 1985 the assailant (accused) applied for optional holiday. 31st March, 1985 was the holiday. He wanted to enjoy it in continuation. His request was refused by his Superior. Nevertheless he remained absent on 30th March, 1985. The deceased made a report to the Sub- Divisional Engineer in the Head Office. The application of the accused was produced at trial and so was the order passed by his Superior. We are not concerned with whether or not that amounted to sufficient motive to commit murder. The part of the judgment shows how the murder was committed. It resulted in the death of the workman at his work premises.

20. It arose out of a feud directly relating to the work of the workman. He fell victim to the accident by murder only because he performed his duties in the normal course. Hence, the fatal injury was caused to him by such accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The observation of the learned Commissioner and Judge, to that extent cannot be faulted."

(Emphasis supplied) Madras High Court

20. In G. Amsaveni v. V. Komala, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3555 (Madras High Court), a watchman in the appellant‟s brick‟s chamber was murdered on duty and a claim for compensation under the Employee‟s Compensation Act was allowed. S. Vimala, J. upheld the award holding the murder to be an accidental murder arising out of and during the course of the employment. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-

"1. Murder, whether tantamount to accident, is the issue raised in this Appeal? If so, whether the accident (of murder) arose out of and in the course of employment, is yet another issue raised.

xxx xxx xxx 4.2 It is not in dispute that the deceased died on account of

murder. Whether the murder would amount to accident is the issue to be considered?

The term „accident‟ is neither defined under Employees Compensation Act nor under the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the dictionary meaning alone has to be taken into account. According to the Black‟s Law Dictionary, the term „accident‟ means, unforeseen untoward incident, which was not reasonably anticipated. The deceased workman could not and did not reasonably could have anticipated that the unforeseen incident (murder) would happen to him and therefore, it is an accident, as per the definition.

xxx xxx xxx When the incident of murder had taken place, in the work place, then the presumption would be that the murder would have been on account of the employment, in the absence of any other evidence pointing out that it could not have been on account of employment. Considering the fact that there is no evidence to show that the murder was out of private dispute between the deceased and somebody else or out of some other motive like murder for gain or sex or property dispute and considering the fact that the incident had taken place in the workplace and the persons, who could have deposed about the incident remaining mute, then the inference is that the murder should have been out of and in the course of employment. Under such circumstances, this Court concur with the findings of the Tribunal that the murder is an accident and that, it took place out of and in the course of employment."

(Emphasis supplied)

21. In Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Rahmath, 2012 (3) L.W. 371, a taxi hired by the persons were found missing. The dead body of the driver was found later on a barren land. However, the taxi remained untraced. S. Vimala, J. upheld the award of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act holding the murder to be an accidental murder arising out of and during the course of the employment of the driver. Relevant portion of the said judgement is as under:-

"1. Whether death of the deceased Mohammed Sultan was

due to murder simpliciter or accidental murder is the intricate question raised in this appeal.

xxx xxx xxx 9.2 The basic parameter/principle to be considered in order to decide whether it is a case of murder simpliciter or accidental murder has been given in the following decisions.

i) 2000 SAR Civil 573 SC (Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Another)

ii) 2009 (2) TN MAC Page 399 (Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad) (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gitaben Saitansinh Rajput & Ors. Page 405) According to the decisions, if the dominant intention of the crime is to kill the deceased, then the killing is a murder simpliciter, but if the murder was not originally intended but, if the murder had been caused in furtherance of any other crime or if the murder is consequential to some other crime, then it can be considered to be an accidental murder. 9.3 In this case the facts reveal that the vehicle involved in the accident is the taxi and from the taxi stand two of them have taken the taxi and the deceased had gone with the taxi along with those two persons and thereafter, the deceased had been found dead, but the car remain untraceable. No previous enmity has been made out between the deceased and the persons, who abducted the deceased. Therefore, the implication is that the main object could have been to commit theft of the vehicle and in that attempt consequentially the deceased had been murdered.

9.4 The probability is more in favour of, the prime intention of the crime, could have been the theft of the vehicle and the consequential incident ought to have been the murder.

xxx xxx xxx

15. Already the claimants are suffering due to the accidental murder of the deceased. Whether their hopes, their expectations and their future should also be murdered is the issue. Law is meant only for the protection of the Public. This special legislation like Social Welfare and Social Security Legislation are meant only to do meaningful effective and quick justice to the suffering mass. Taking invalid, incorrect, insensitive defences irrespective of the nature of t he sufferings certainly causes indelible impression in the mind of the victims that those public sector undertakings are not meant for public cause or public good. The insurance company do not stand to

gain by taking this incorrect defence. This Court expects that at least in future the insurance company will take a responsible defence."

(Emphasis supplied) Gauhati High Court

22. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabita Gope, 2000 (2) LLN 655, (Gauhati High Court) (Division Bench) a truck driver was found dead in the cabin of the truck while returning from Khowai to Gauhati. The application for compensation was allowed. The Division Bench of Gauhati High Court upheld the award holding the death of the deceased workman to be an accident in course of employment. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

"5. ......Accident is not defined in the Act. Therefore, the meaning of accident must be given as understood by the ordinary people in general. As per SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Third Edition, revised with addenda (Volume I) the word "accident" means I. anything that happens an event; especially an unforeseen contingency; a disaster. Similarly, the BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition defines the word "accident" as follows:-

"In an etymological sense anything that happens may be said to be an accident and in this sense, the word has been defined as befalling a change; a happening; an incident; an occurrence or event. In its most commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary or popular sense the word may be defined as meaning; a fortuitous circumstances, event, or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens; an unusual, fortuitous, unexpected, unforeseen or unlocked for event, happening or occurrence; an unusual or unexpected result attending the operation or performance of a usual or necessary act or event; chance or contingency; fortune; mishap; some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation, upon the instant, rather than something

which continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary or phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence."

However, it must be remembered that the dictionary assists in appreciating and comprehending the general sense of the words. However, the words of a dictionary will not control the scheme of the statute. The Supreme Court in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, v. K.T. Kosalram and Ors., observed :

"What particular meaning should be attached to words and phrases in a given instrument is usually to be gathered from the context, the nature of the subject- matter, the purpose or the intention of the authority and the effect of giving to them one or the other permissible meaning on the object to be achieved. Words are after all used merely as a vehicle to convey the idea of the speaker or the writer and the words have naturally, therefore, to be so construed as to fit in with the idea which emerges on a consideration of the entire context. Each word is but a symbol which may stand for one or a number of objects. The context, in which a word conveying different shades of meanings is used, is of importance in determining the precise sense which fits in with the context as intended to be conveyed by the author."

6. The meaning of the word 'accident' is to be gathered from the context, the subject-matter, the intention of the Legislature, effect of the meaning given and the object of the enactment. While dealing with the meaning of the word 'accident' in the expression 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' in the (English) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 in Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly 1914 AC 667 (HL), VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. observed as follows:-

"It seems to me important to bear in mind that 'accident' is a word the meaning of which may vary according as the context varies. In criminal jurisprudence crime and accident are sharply divided by the presence or absence of mens rea. But in contracts such as those of marine

insurance and of carriage by sea this is not so. In such cases the Maxim 'in jure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur' is applied. I need only refer your Lordships to what was laid down by LORD HERSCHELL and LORD BARMWELL when overruling the notion that a peril or an accident in such cases is what must happen without the fault of anybody in Wilson v. Owners of the Cargo per the Xantho 1888 57 LT 701.

It is therefore necessary, in endeavouring to arrive at what is meant by accident to consider the context in which the word is introduced. The scope and purpose of that context may make the whole difference."

"......... What was held in Fenton v. Thorely 1903 AC 443 was the injury and accident were not to be separated and that 'injury by accident' meant nothing more than accidental injury or accident as the word is popularly used," In the same case EARL LOREBURN observed as follows:-

"A good deal was said about the word 'accident'. Etymologically, the word means something which happens - a rendering which is not very helpful. We are to construe it in the popular sense, as plain people would understand but we are also to construe it in its setting, in the context and in the, light of the purpose which appears from the Act itself. Now, there is no single rigid meaning in the common use of the word. Mankind have taken the liberty of using it, as they use to many other words, not in any exact sense but in a somewhat confused, or rather in a variety of ways."

"........ In short, the common meaning of this word is ruled neither by logic nor by etymology, but by custom, and no formula will precisely express its usage for all cases."

The House of Lords in the aforesaid case held that the injuries caused by deliberate violence which arose out of and during the course of employment also, amounted to 'accident'. The word 'accident' is construed in a wide canvass depending on the context keeping in mind the ordinary and popular sense in which it is used and understood by the persons concerned. The English Courts have also taken the view that man slaughter arising from negligent driving on the road is covered by the contract of indemnity in respect of accidental injury; (1921) 3 KB 327 and (1927) 2 KB 311, - referred and relied in Marles

v. Philip Trant and Sons Ltd. 1954 1 QB 29 (CA) by DENNING L.J. in this context it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Bhagubai, v. General Manager, Central Railway, V. T. Bombay, reported in 1954 II LLJ 403. In the above case, the deceased was employed in Central Railway at a station and he lived in the railway quarters adjoining the railway station. It was found that the only access for the deceased from his quarters to the railway station was through the compound of the railway quarters. One night the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight, in order to join duty and immediately thereafter he was stabbed by some unknown person. There was no evidence that the employee was done to death because someone was interested in murdering him. Nor was there any evidence that the employee was bound to be murdered whether he was on the spot in the course of his employment or anywhere else. The Bombay High Court in that case held that the accident arose out of the employment. While deciding the case CHAGLA, C.J who delivered the judgment in the aforesaid case made the following observation:-

"There must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. If the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face then a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. The fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. The peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. He must not by his own act add to the peril or extend the peril. Once the peril is established it is for the employer then to establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself, that he added or extended the peril, or that the peril was not a general peril but a peril personal to the employee."

7. From the evidence on record it thus emerges that the

deceased reached Patharkandi and was compelled to halt there due to bandh. The deceased had to be in the particular spot at that particular moment in course of his employment and by reason of his employment, he met with untoward event or mishap or occurrence took place because he was there in course of his employment. The claimants established their burden. No other duties or burden is imposed on the claimants to prove and establish any further requirement. The claimants established the proximate cause of death of the deceased and also established the proximate connection between the employment and his injury which is the accident caused to the deceased at that particular spot in course of his employment thus resulting in his death. In our opinion the learned Commissioner rightly reached his conclusion and imposed liability on the employer under Section 3 of the Act.

Karnataka High Court

23. In M A Kareem Sab v. Palaniyamma, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 4514, a vehicle was stolen and the taxi driver was killed by the passengers. The Karnataka High Court following Rita Devi (supra), upheld the award for compensation under section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act.

Judgments cited by the appellants

24. In Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, AIR 1997 SC 432, an employee died in a road accident on his way to the factory one kilometre away from the factory and the claim for compensation was rejected as the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. The ratio of Francis De Costa (supra) does not support the appellant. In the present case, the employee died due to an accidental murder during the course of his employment and the case is covered by Rita Devi (supra) followed by this Court and other High Courts.

25. Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513, Rashida Haroon Kupurade v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 271, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Srinivasa, 2007 ACJ 718 relied upon by the appellant relate to the death of an employee due to heart attack whereas the present case relates to an accidental murder.

26. In D.S. Construction Ltd. v. Raj Kali Devi, 2010 LLR 316, (Delhi High Court) relied upon by the appellant, the claim was rejected on the ground that the cause of death was cardiac respiratory failure as per the death certificate and there was no evidence to prove that the deceased died due to the fall from the crane. This judgment is on the facts of that case and does not support the appellant.

27. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Smt. Gyan Kaur, 2000 ACJ 100, the dead body of an employee was found in the work premises. The Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the claim for compensation under the ESI Act on the ground that there was no casual connection with the employment. This judgment does not support the appellant. In the present case there was a casual connection with the employment. That apart, the Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have taken a contrary view in Satya v. S.D.O., P.W.D. (supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Bai Jain (supra).

28. In Lakshmi v. Proprietor, M/s. Hotel Ajantha, 2002 ACJ 1465, relied upon by the appellant, the Karnataka High Court rejected the claim for compensation in respect of an employee murdered at the work place. However, the Karnataka High Court did not consider Rita

Devi (supra) which is a binding precedent. In M A Kareem Sab v. Palaniyamma (supra), the Karnataka High Court, following Rita Devi (supra) upheld the award in the case of murder of taxi driver.

29. It is well settled that judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It has to be remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without regard to the factual situation and circumstances of the two cases. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, the Supreme Court had held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation. The Supreme Court observed as under:-

"9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737: (1951) 2 All ER 1

(HL)] (AC at p. 761) Lord Mac Dermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge..."

10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)] (All ER p. 297g-h) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances". Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v.Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament."And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."

11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:

"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.

* * * Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim

off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."

30. Summary of the principles 30.1. The term „accident‟ is neither defined in the Employees‟ Compensation Act nor the General Clauses Act. According to the Black‟s Law Dictionary, the term „accident‟ means an unforeseen untoward incident, which was not reasonably anticipated. 30.2. The murder, as it is understood in the common parlance, is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by an accident on a given set of facts. The Supreme Court, in Rita Devi (supra) laid down the following test to determine whether a murder can be an accident: -

─ If the dominant intention of the crime is to kill the deceased, then the killing is a murder simpliciter. However, if the murder was not originally intended and is in furtherance of any other crime or consequential to some other crime, then it can be considered to be an accidental murder.

30.3. A murder can be an accident in cases where the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder, because the deceased employee could not have anticipated that the unforeseen incident (murder) would happen to him. It will be an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event, which is not expected or designed and therefore, a murder can be an „accident‟ from the point of view of the person

who suffered from it is an accident.

30.4. If the employee could not and did not reasonably anticipate that the unforeseen incident (murder) would happen to him, it is an „accident‟. The word „accident‟ excludes the idea of wilful and intentional act but the phrase would include an accidental happening so far as the employee was concerned. 30.5. The Employees‟ Compensation Act is a social beneficial legislation and has to be liberally construed. It was enacted to give succour to employees against injuries caused by accident. The object of the Act doesn‟t specify the applicability of the Act only in case of accidents by machines only. The injury caused by the act of another human being that result in fatal injuries tantamount to murder qua the assailant and an accidental act qua the employee.

30.6. A casual connection is necessary between the accident and the employment to hold that the accident arose out of employment. When the incident of murder takes place in the work place, then the presumption would be that the murder would have been on account of the employment; in the absence of any other evidence pointing out that it could not have been on account of employment.

30.7. If it is proved that the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place, and by reason of his being in that particular place, he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a casual connection is established between the incident and the employment.

30.8. Once the applicant has established that the deceased was

at a particular place where he was assaulted and stabbed to death because of his employment, he has discharged the burden which the law places upon him. The law does not place an additional burden upon the applicant to prove that the peril which the employee faced and the accident which arose because of that peril was not personal to him but was shared by all the employees or the members of the public.

30.9. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Employees‟ Compensation Act, 1923 are both beneficial enactments operating in the same field to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents and hence, the judicially accepted interpretation of the word „death‟ in the Employees‟ Compensation Act is applicable to the interpretation of the word „death‟ in the Motor Vehicles Act also.

Findings

31. Applying the principles laid down in the above mentioned judgments, the murder of Suresh Singh is held to be an accidental murder. No evidence was led by the appellant to suggest that the dominant purpose of the assailant was to kill the deceased. There is no evidence that the deceased in any way added to the peril. The deceased could not and did not contemplate his murder. It was an unforeseen and untoward happening and therefore, an accidental murder.

32. With respect to the relationship of employment between the deceased, the deceased is held to be in the employment of appellant as a watchman in the appellant‟s factory and was called to do household work at the appellant‟s house on occasion of festival of Diwali and he stayed overnight on the instructions of appellant‟s wife.

33. There is a casual connection between the employment and the accidental murder as the deceased was in the appellant‟s house during the course of his employment. But for his employment, the deceased would not have been at the place of accident, where he was at the time he was killed. Thus, it is held that the accidental murder occurred in the course of the employment of the deceased with the appellant.

34. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi (supra) and this Court in Kanshi Ram (supra), Shakeela Parveen (supra) and Shehzadi Yasmeen (supra); Madhya Pradesh High Court in Satiya (supra), and Sheela Bai Jain (supra); Calcutta High Court in Subir Mukherjee (supra); Kerala High Court in Thomman (supra), Philo (supra) and Thankamma (supra); Bombay High Court in Bhagubai (supra) and Arti (supra); Madras High Court in V. Komala (supra) and Rahmath (supra); Gauhati High Court in Sabita Gope (supra); Karnataka High Court in Palaniyamma (supra).

Conclusion

35. The order of the Commissioner, Employees‟ Compensation holding the appellant is liable to pay compensation to respondents no.1 to 4 is upheld.

36. The appellant raised frivolous, invalid, incorrect and insensitive pleas and therefore, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the appellant. The cost be deposited by the appellant with the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks.

37. The appellant has deposited the principal compensation amount with the Commissioner, out of which 40% has been released to respondents No.1 to 4 and the balance amount is lying with the Commissioner, Employees‟ Compensation. The Commissioner,

Employee‟s Compensation is directed to transfer the balance compensation amount to the Registrar General of this Court.

38. The appellant is directed to deposit the interest on the compensation amount with the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks.

39. Sections 4A(3)(b) of the Employees‟ Compensation Act provides for imposition of penalty upto 50% of the compensation if the compensation is not deposited by the employer when it fell due. Since the appellant did not deposit the compensation when it fell due, show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner, Employees‟ Compensation to the appellant to show cause as to why the penalty be not imposed on the appellant. However, no order has yet been passed by the Commissioner. Considering that this case relates to an accident in November, 2001, instead of remanding the matter back, a fresh showcause notice is issued to the appellant to showcause why penalty be not imposed on him. Let the reply to the show cause notice be filed by the appellant within a period of three weeks.

40. The order for disbursement of the balance compensation amount, interest and cost shall be passed after examining the respondents No.1 to 4.

41. List for disbursement of balance compensation amount and for hearing with respect to the imposition of penalty on 8th May, 2017.

42. Respondents No.1 to 4 shall remain present in Court along with passbooks of their savings bank account near the place of their residence as well as PAN cards on the next date of hearing.

43. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner, Employees‟ Compensation as well as Mr.

Sanjoy Ghose, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD for being circulated to all the Commissioner, Employee‟s Compensation.

12th APRIL, 2017                                   J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk/ak/dk