MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar dated May 28, 1987 by which the appellants have been directed to make payment of Rs. 48, 634. 40 P. with interest to the respondents. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) LATE Arjan Singh was working as a Beldar under the control of the appellants. On 28. 10. 85, he was entrusted with the work of spraying water on the canal banks along with Karnail Singh, under the supervision of Ramchandra. His duty hours were from 8 A. M. to 5 P. M. After duty hours, he did not come back to his house. Accordingly, his search was started. On 2. 11. 85, his cycle was found beneath a bridge near the place wh-re he was working and his dead body was found floating at a distance of two-and-half kms. from this bridge. A report to this effect was made by his father Palsingh in the Police Station, T. B. (Sri Ganganagar)- The post-mortem examination on his dead body was conducted and drowning was found to be the cause of his death. A claim petition was moved under Section 22 of the Act before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar by the widow and three children of the deceased stating that Arjan Singh received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death. The appellants filed their reply admitting that the deceased was in their employment till October 25, 1985 as a Beldar and his pay in respect of the period from 1st October to 28th October, 1985 had not been paid. The remaining allegation of the claim petition have been denied. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing them, he awarded the said compensation by his order under appeal. It has been contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has seriously erred in holding that the deceased Arjan Singh died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. She contended that the facts of the case relied upon by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, i. e. B. E. S. T. Undertaking v. M/s. Ajnesh, (1) are quite different and distinguishable. The learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the order under appeal. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased Arjan Singh was sprinkling water on the canal banks and for this purpose, he was taking water from the canal and in this process, he drowned in the canal. No witness has been produced by the appellants to prove this fact. The claimant No. 1 Bachno P. W. 1 and Ganda Singh P. W. 2 have been examined by the claimants. Admittedly, Bachno P. W. 1 was not an eye-witness. Ganda Singh P. W. 2 also does not say that he saw the deceased drowning in the canal. On the contrary, the respondents-witnesses Ramchandra D. W. 1 and Bakhel Singh D. W. 2 have deposed that the deceased Arjan Singh was working along with them up to 5 P. M. On 28. 10. 1985 and after duty hours all of them dispersed and proceeded for their houses. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in their cross-examination. Their testimony finds corroboration from the fact that the cycle of the deceased was also found in the water of the canal. It is not the case and could not be that the deceased was using his cycle for fetching the water from the canal for sprinkling the canal banks. The father of the deceased Palsingh reported to the police that his son has fallen down in the canal along with his cycle while crossing the bridge. Thus it is proved from the evidence on record that the deceased died while he was returning to his home after his duty was over. It is not proved from the material on record that he died due to accident arising out and in the course of his employment. It has been observed in S. S. Manufacturing Company v. Bali Valu Raj (2), as follows: - " (8) 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 upto 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 an in the course of his employment. Both the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the High Court were in error in supposing that the deceased workmen in this case were still in the course of their employment when they were crossing the creak 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. The facts and circumstances reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 are quite different and distinguishable. In it, the deceased was travelling in the bus of the employer from the depot to his house and the drivers of the employer were provided such free transport facility. Under these facts and circumttances, it was held that the deceased died in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In the instant case, even the cycle was not provided by the employer i. e. , appellants. They did not require the deceased to return to his house from that particular route. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to endorse the views of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar dated 28-5-87 is set aside. Parties will bear their own costs. . ;