Lahiri, C.J. - (1.) Two questions of some importance have been raised in this appeal by the employers against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation to the respondent who is the widow of one Md. Ismail. Md. Ismail was a Shed-writer of the appellant. On December 29, 1953, while Ismail was proceeding along the Circular Garden Reach Road on a bicycle from west to east at about 10.15 a.m. to join his duty in the Port Commissioners' Office at Kidderpore Dock, he was knocked down by a motor-car and sustained injuries, as a result of which he died on the following day. On September 22, 1954, the respondent who is the widow of Ismail filed an application claiming a lump payment oE a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation. The claim was resisted by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, inasmuch as the deceased Ismail was knocked down on a public road and he shared the risk in common with all the other members of the public and it was further pleaded by the appellant that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Upon the pleadings the two questions that arose for consideration were: (a) whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and (b) whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
(2.) In order to decide the first question I shall have to determine the exact place where the accident took place. In this enquiry we have been greatly handicapped by the absence of any map or plan of the place of accident showing the local features and we have to rely on the materials supplied by the report of a local inspection held by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the oral evidence adduced by the parries. As far as one can judge from these materials, in order to reach his place of employment the deceased was proceeding on a bicycle from west to east along the Circular Garden Reach Road which is a public road maintained by the Corporation of Calcutta. A section of this road is controlled by the Com-missoners for the Port of Calcutta, because it passes through the dock area. In order to reach his office along this road, Ismail had to cross a swing bridge and-two sets of railway lines belonging to the Port Commissioners, In between the western end of the swing bridge and the eastern end of the railway lines there are three barriers which are controlled by the Port Commissioners for the purpose of securing the safety of the public who bave occasion to pass and repass over this section of the road. There are notice boards hung up near the barriers controlling traffic and restricting speed limit to five miles per hour over the swing bridge. It appears from the evidence that Ismail had crossed the swing bridge and had also crossed the railway lines and reached a place which is at a distance of about 40 ft. from the swing bridge when he was knocked down by a motor car. According to the evidence of the applicant's witness No. 2, who is a bridge operator under the Port Commissioners, carts, lorries, cars, taxis of members of the public pass along this road and the public have a right to use this road. This witness further says that the bridge is cleaned by the Port Commis-sioners' sweepers. Upon these materials the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has found that though the accident took place on a public road, the place of accident was under the control of the employers and further that the place of accident being close to the premises of the employers, it must be considered to be an essential part of the place of employment. On this view, the learned Commissioner has held that the accident arose in the course of the employment.
(3.) It is necessary to have a clear idea of the nature of the control exercised by the Port Commissioners over this section of the public road. In the first place, it is clear upon the evidence that the control ot the Fort Commissioners was confined to the section of the road lying between the western end of the swing bridge and the eastern end of the railway lines and the control consisted in lowering the barriers when the swing bridge was opened and the railway trains belonging to the Port Commissioners were passing over the railway lines and the bridge used to be cleaned by the Port Commissioners' sweepers. It is also clear that the deceased had safely crossed the swing bridge and the railway lines on his way to his office. The evidence on the record does not justify the conclusion that the Port Commissioners had any control over that part of the Circular Garden Reach Road which lies beyond the eastern boundary of the railway lines. The notice restricting the speed limit is also confined to the swing bridge. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the accident took place on the public road at a point over which the Port Commissioners had no control.;