WESTERN RAILWAY Vs. BAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award 14.5.04 passed by Commmissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ratlam in Case No. 25/WCF/97 whereby claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,50,329.00 was awarded for which respondent No. 3 and appellant were held liable, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 22.6.05 on the following substantial questions of law :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that from the facts on record is amply proved that the deceased was murdered by the respondent No. 3 in whose employment the deceased was working. It is submitted that since the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant, therefore, learned Court below committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that since Dhanji was murdered by the respondent No. 3, therefore, it cannot be termed as an accident. It is further submitted that since the death of Dhanji was not out of and in the course of employment,.therefore, appellant cannnot be held liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of State Bank of India v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi, 1998 1 MPLJ 432 wherein deceased who was employed as messanger in Bank died in accident when public bus in which he was proceeding on his duty plunged into river resulting in death, a Division Bench of this Court held that nothing had been brought on record to show that employee was obliged to travel in any particular manner under terms of employment nor he was travelling in a transport provided by employer. It was further held that travel by public transport by deceased cannot therefore be regarded as a travel as a part of his duty, hence claimant not entitled to get compensation. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Ramu Pasi, 2006 2 MPLJ 223 wherein claim was for compensation by claimant who was casual worker for injury in his finger, Hon'ble Apex Court held that workman defined in the Act does not cover a casual worker, hence claim is not maintainable. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside.