Decided on January 28,1970

KAMALA Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal under the Letters Patent arises out of an accident claim made by the widow of the deceased. At about 6-30 p. m. on 6th June 1961, her husband had been asked by one Mr. Watts, who was a dredger, to fetch food for him, and was knocked down by a lorry on the highways near St. Thomas Mount and he died on the spot, At the time the deceased was riding a cycle and returning to the Port trust with food from Mr. Watt's residence. The Additional Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, was not satisfied that the deceased was injured resulting in his death by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment He was of the view that fetching food for the Dredger was not part of a Port Trust lascar's job. Venkatadri J. , however, allowed the appeal by the respondent and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2100.
(2.) THERE is no dispute about the quantum of compensation. But, on behalf of the port Trust, it is contended that the deceased having been on a private errand commissioned by the Dredger and, the accident having occurred during performing that errand, which was not part of the lascar's employment, the Port trust could not be made liable for compensation. Venkatadri J. 's view point on this was:--"therefore it is clear that till this office order No. 38 was issued on 9-81961, the dredge masters were under the genuine impression that the lascars on duty could legitimately be asked to bring food from, outside the premises in order to enable them to supervise the work in the Port trust without interruption. It should also be remembered that the act of the lascar in bringing the food for his master was only to facilitate the work of the master. " in other words, the learned Judge seems to be of opinion that, in the particular circumstances it was within the scope of the employment of the deceased lascar to go and fetch food for the dredge master at his discretion. The grant of compensation, therefore, depended on the scope of the lascar's employment.
(3.) THE words in Section 3 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, 'accident arising out of and in the course of his employment have been the subject-matter of a number of decided cases. It will suffice, however, to refer to Sau-rashtra Salt manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja, where the Supreme Court, construing the words 'hi the course of his employment' said:-" 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. It is now well settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. " these observations were made also having regard to the facts in that case, as the accident there took place outside the place of employment. The place of employment, the time assigned for doing the work of the employment and whether the injury was sustained while doing any work within the scope of employment, would be material to enquire in order to see whether an accident arises out of and in the course of a man's employment.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.