MANAGER, ROSIN AND TURPENTINE FACTORY Vs. ALI BEGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajouri, dated 3-8-1982 and has arisen in the following circumstances :

(2.) Faiz Moh'd deceased was an employee of the appellant-factory as a daily wager. On 25-7-1981, be left his home to report for his duty at the factory. For reaching the factory he had to cross a river and while crossing the river he was washed away in the strong current of the river and died. His widow Mst. Ali Begma, respondent herein, filed an application before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) claiming of compensation urder the workmen's compensation Act. Notice was issued to the appellant whose manager appeared on 2-12-1981. No objections were filed to the application and on the other band the manager of the appellant, as its authorised representative, got his statement recorded admitting the employment of the deceased as also the factor of his death on 25-7-1981 while crossing the river on his way to report for duty at the factory. He also deposed that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing Rs, 309.16 as his monthly wages. The respondent also appeared before the Commissioner and in her deposition stated the manner which her husband, an employee of the appellant, met with his death on 25-7-1981. She further deposed that for going to the factory from his home as also while returning to his home from the factory daily, the deceased had to cross the river, because the factory was located across the river. She was not at all challenged in the cross-examination. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that to reach the factory, the deceased had to crass the river and that he was doing so on every day. He accordingly held that the deceased died during the course of his employment and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the premises of the factory would be deemed to have been extended to include the river, which the employee had of necessity to cross to reach the factory. He, therefore, calculating the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule IV awarded compensation of Rs. 19,200.00 and made an award accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Khajuria, learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed either the fact that the deceased was an employee of the appellant or the position that he died on 25-7-1981 while crossing the river on his way to the factory. Even the calculation of the compensation has not been disputed by him. Learned counsel has, however, urged that the respondent was not entitled to receive any compensation because according to the learned counsel the accident though had occurred during the course of the employment of the deceased but it did not occur "out of his employment." Mr. S. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, argued that the evidence on the record clearly established that the deceased had died as a result of an accident which occurred out of his employment and in the course of his employment.