MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. P. GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Special Civil Application, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay seeks to set aside the order dated November 25, 1970 passed by respondent No. 2 who is the presiding officer, 1st Labour Court, Bombay.

(2.) THE undisputed facts which have led to the matter before us are that, at all material times, respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner -Corporation as a bus -hunter in. its Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (referred to hereafter ass 'the B.E.S.T.') On April 19, 1967, respondent No. 1 left his residence at Kurla at about 6.30 a.m. and boarded a B.E.S.T. bus in order to proceed to Sion from where he had to take another B.E.S.T. bus in order to report for duty at Dadar. Between Kurla and Sion, the driver of the B.E.S.T. bus in which respondent No. 1 was travelling, applied the emergency brake, which caused a jerk. As a result, respondent No. 1 sustained an injury to his back and was in plaster from April 23, 1967 till July 10, 1967. He received a sum of Rs. 316, being the payment to which he was entitled under Section 4(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. He, thereafter made a demand to the B.E.S.T. Undertaking of the petitioner -Corporation for a further sum of Rs. 435.28, being the difference in his full wages and the amount received by him under Section 4(1)(d). This demand was made by respondent No. 1 under an agreement dated May 21, 1965 between the B.E.S.T. Undertaking of the petitioner -Corporation and the union of its employees. As this demand of Rs. 435.28 was repulsed, respondent No. 1 made his claim before the Labour Court, which, by its judgment and order dated November 25, 1970, upheld the same, and ordered the payment thereof to respondent No. 1. Hence the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) MR . Singhvi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -Corporation, contended that the words 'arising out of employment', must not be given the same connotation or meaning as the words, 'in the course of employment', and that the legal fiction of notional extension of time and place attributed to the words, 'in the course of employment', would have no application to the words in the agreement, viz. 'arising out of employment'. Mr. Singhvi urged that the meaning of the words '' arising out of'', is more restrictive than the words 'in the course of'. Thus, according to Mr. Singhvi, the accident not having arisen out of respondent No. 1's employment, or in the course of his duties as a bus -hunter, he was not entitled to the additional amount of Rs. 435.28, and hence respondent No. 2 was in error in awarding the same.