Jharkhand High Court
Ranju Devi vs The Station Manager/ Master on 19 March, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 351 of 2015
Ranju Devi, W/o Late Surendra Prasad Yadav, R/o Village- Kewal,
P.O. Gurpa, P.S. Fatehpur, District- Gaya (Bihar).
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The Station Manager/ Master, at Gajhandi, P.O. & P.S. Tilaiya,
District- Koderma.
2.Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad.
3.General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
.. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.(s) : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
......
14/ 19.03.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The claimant/ appellant is in appeal against the judgment dated
23.01.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in
W.C. Case No. 12 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the claim for
compensation under Sections 3, 4 and 22 read with Rule 20 of
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been dismissed.
2. The claimant is the widow of the deceased Surendra Prasad who was a
permanent employee of Eastern Railway under Dhanbad Division and
was posted as a porter at Gajhandi Railway Station.
3. As per the case of the claimant, on 26.11.2008 , deceased was on duty
and with permission of the Station Manager, left the place of employment
and had proceeded towards Koderma for his personal work by a power
wagon rail. The power wagon had a brief halt when the workman went to
attend his natural call and while returning, he was hit by a Goods Train,
resulting in his death.
4. Learned Labour Court relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in 1969 (2) SCC 607 and (2009) 13 SCC 405 recorded a finding
that since the deceased had proceeded on some personal work,
therefore, the accidental death will not come within the meaning of death
during course of employment.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the
deceased had gone for treatment after taking due permission, therefore,
the accident will be deemed to have taken place in course of employment
as per the doctrine of notional extension. Reliance in this regard is placed
on AIR 2019 Supreme Court 586 and AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1305.
6. It is argued that the claim application has been turned down inter-alia by
referring to Gajhandi Station Rules where the porters were not supposed
to leave the Station on duty hours. It is submitted in this regard that no
specific rule has been cited and there cannot be a rule specific to a
particular station.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent(s)- Railways has opposed the
prayer. It is submitted that on fact it is beyond dispute that the
deceased was not on duty at the time of accident. The sole witness is
the claimant (Ranju Devi) who has deposed that her husband due to
illness had left the place on 02:45 with permission of Station Manager.
Further the accident took place and he died far away from his place of
duty. Therefore, it cannot come in course of employment within the
meaning under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
8. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides,
the short question that falls for consideration is if a workman leaves
duty presumably on the ground for treatment, will an accident taking
place in such circumstance will come within the meaning of during
course of employment as defined under Section 3 of the Employee's
Compensation Act,1923?
9. Relevant to the discussion is Section 3 of the Act. The relevant extract
reads as follows:
"3. 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:"
10. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition urged on
behalf of the appellant, that if there is a causal link with employment,
then by doctrine of notional extension an employee shall be covered
under this section, even if he for a brief while leaves his duty and goes
for taking bath in a nearby well or, being a driver just relaxes nearby.
But it will be stretching the meaning of expression within "course of
employment," too far to bring within its fold a workman who has
proceeded on leave, after taking due permission from competent
authority. Being on leave and claiming to have suffered accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment, are irreconcilable.
11. In the present case, deceased was a porter at Gajhandi Station, and
the accident took place when he had left the place of work after taking
leave. There is no reference to what was the nature of illness and where
he was going for treatment. There is not a chit of paper to substantiate
the plea of nature of illness and its treatment and the case hinges on the
solitary account of the claimant. Having proceeded on leave, the
deceased cannot be said to be on duty and the accident to be arising out
of and in the course of his employment. If such pleas are accepted then
all cases of death of a workman on personal errand can come within the
definition of Section 3 of the said Act to claim compensation.
12. For the above reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment.
Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
