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