High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) fa-2759-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.2759 OF 20241.The Divisional Railway Manger,Nanded Division, South Central Railway,Airport Road, nanded 431604.2.Station Master,Pedgaon Railway Station,Pedgaon, T1. & Dist. Parbhani 431537 ..Respondents(Orig. Respondents)Versus1.Smt. Reena Wd/o. Narendra Raikwad,Age 30 yrs., Occ. Service,2.Khushi d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 11 Yrs. Occu. Education,R/o. As above.3.Muskan d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 9 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o As above.4.Vansh s/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 7 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o. As above.5.Anshika d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 5 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o. As above...Appellants (Orig. Applicant Nos.1 to 5)Applicant No.2 to 5 are minorU/g. Of their mother i.e. appellant no.1Smt. Reena wd/o. Narendra RaikwarAll R/o. Krishna Colony RB-I, 283Opp. Hindi-English Church, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon 425201. …Mr. A. G. Talhar, DSGI for Appellants.Mr. P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.…ANDFIRST APPEAL NO.234 OF 20241.Smt. Reena Wd/o. Narendra Raikwad,Age 32 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o. Krishna Colony RB-I, 283 (2) fa-2759-2024Opp. Hindi-English Church,Bhusawal 425201, Dist. Jalgaon.2.Khushi d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 12 Yrs. Occu. Education,R/o. As above.3.Muskan d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 10 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o As above.4.Vansh s/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 8 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o. As above.5.Anshika d/o. Narendra Raikwar,Age: 6 Yrs., Occu. Education,R/o. As above...Appellants(Orig. Claimants)Applicant No.2 to 5 are minorU/g. Of their mother i.e. appellant no.1Smt. Reena wd/o. Narendra RaikwarVersus1.The Divisional Railway Manger,Nanded Division, South Central Railway,Airport Road, nanded 431604.2.Station Master,Pedgaon Railway Station,Pedgaon, T1. & Dist. Parbhani 431537 ..Respondents(Orig. Respondents) …Mr. P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. A. G. Talhar, DSGI for Respondents.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 01st APRIL, 2025.ORDER:- 1.The present appeals are arising out of common judgment andaward passed by Commissioner for Employees Compensation andJudge, Labour Court, Nanded in an Application (WCA)-CNo.10/2022. The First Appeal No.2759/2024 is filed by originalrespondents/Divisional Railway Manager, Nanded, whereas First (3) fa-2759-2024Appeal No.234/2024 has been filed by original claimants seekingenhancement of compensation. 2.In nutshell, facts leading to present appeals are as under:Late Narendra Raikwar was employed withrespondents/Railway Department from 25.03.2009. He wasdrawing salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. On 07.07.2019, he was onduty from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm at railway crossing gate no.112 ofPedgaon Railway Station. After duty hours, he left for home.Since, he did not reach home. The search was taken and founddead besides railway track at gate no.12. He was found wearinguniform of department. The Identity Card was located in hispocket. 3.The applicants instituted proceeding under Section 4 ofEmployees’ Compensation Act against respondents/Railwayseeking compensation of Rs.25,30,320/- alongwith interest @ 12%per annum.4.The respondents refuted claim mainly on the ground thataccident occurred after duty hours, when late Narendra handedover his charge at about 20.20 hours. His dead body was found at21.30 hours. Since his residence is hardly 700 meters away,incident cannot be covered within meaning of death during thecourse of and arising out of employment. (4) fa-2759-20245.The learned Commissioner for Employees Compensationafter evaluation of evidence, partly allowed claim and grantedcompensation of Rs.7,88,560/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annumfrom the date of accident till its realization.6.Mr. Talhar, learned DSGI appearing for appellants/RailwayDepartment vehemently submits that death of Narendra can neverbe termed as during the course of and arising out of employment inview of Section 3 of Employees’ Compensation Act. He submitsthat undisputedly death is beyond working hours of deceased.There is sufficient material to show that he handed over charge at20.20 hours and left the place of employment. His dead body wasdetected at about 09.30 pm. Therefore, such death can neither beattributed to employment nor considered as arising out of and inthe course of his employment, so as to bring home liability ofrespondent/employer within meaning of Section 3 of the Employees’Compensation Act.7.Per contra, Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate appearing forclaimants vehemently submits that body of deceased found nearrailway track. Late Narendra was wearing railway uniform. Hedid not reach home at the end of duty hours. Therefore, search wastaken and at about 09.30 pm dead body was located. Therefore,reasonable conclusion can be drawn that accident occurred whilelate Narendra was returning home. (5) fa-2759-20248.Considering submissions advanced by learned Advocatesappearing for respective parties, there is no dispute that lateNarendra was employed with respondents/Railway Departmentand he attended his duty upto 08.20 pm on the date of incident.Thereafter, he left place of his employment and his dead bodyfound at 09.30 pm. The exact time of accident is not on record. Therecord indicates that first Train No.17058 passed throughPadegaon at about 20.31 hours and next Train No.17687 passedabout 20.40 hours. Therefore, possibility that he received injuriesin accident involving either of train cannot be ruled out. The causeof death may not be relevant in facts of case. However, proximityof time of end of his duty hours and injuries suffered by himleading to death would be relevant. From aforesaid material, it candefinitely be inferred that death was in proximity of duty hours.Late Narendra had not reached home after end of duty hours andwhile leaving towards his home, he suffered injuries leading to hisdeath. No contra evidence is brought on record on behalf ofrespondents to explain circumstances by which some differentconclusion can be drawn.9.The law on the aforesaid aspect has been elaboratelydiscussed and considered by Supreme Court of India in case ofGeneral Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking Bombay Vs. Mrs.Agnes1 in reference to law laid down in case of Saurashtra Salt1AIR 1964 SC 193.
Legal Reasoning
(6) fa-2759-2024Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bai Valu Raja2, wherein doctrine of“Notional Extension” of employer’s premises in the context of anaccident to an employee has been elaborated thus : -“As a rule, the employment of a workman does notcommence until he has reached the place of employmentand does not continue when he has left the place ofemployment, the journey to and from the place ofemployment being excluded. It is now well-settled,however, that this is subject to the theory of notionalextension of the employer's premises so as to include anarea which the workman passes and repasses in going toand in leaving the actual place of work. There may besome reasonable extension in both time and place and aworkman may be regarded as in the course of hisemployment even though he had not reached or had lefthis employer's premises. The facts and circumstances ofeach case will have to be examined very carefully inorder to determine whether the accident arose out of andin the course of the employment of a workman, keepingin view at all times this theory of notional extension.”10.The findings recorded by Commissioner appears to be in tunewith exposition of law stated above. Hence, no interference in thisAppeal is called for.11.The claimants have filed cross-appeal seeking enhancementof compensation. Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate appearing forappellants/claimants submits that learned Commissioner haserroneously restricted monthly wages of deceased to the tune ofRs.8000/- per month while computing compensation relying uponNotification of Central Government dated 31.05.2010. He submitsthat in view of amendment in Employees’ Compensation Act, suchrestriction has been removed and compensation has to be worked2AIR 1985 SC 881. (7) fa-2759-2024out on the basis of actual salaried income of employee. At thisstage reference can be given to observations of Supreme Court ofIndia in case of K. Sivaraman and Ors. Vs. P Sathishkuar andanother3. which reads thus:“26. Prior to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of the deemingprovision in Explanation II to Section 4, the monthly wagesof an employee were capped at Rs.4000 even where anemployee was able to prove the payment of a monthly wagein excess of Rs.4,000. The legislature, in its wisdom andkeeping in mind the purpose of the 1923 Act as a socialwelfare legislation did not enhance the quantum in thedeeming provision, but deleted it altogether. Theamendment is in furtherance of the salient purpose whichunderlies the 1923 Act of providing to all employeescompensation for accidents which occur in the course ofand arising out of employment. The objective of theamendment is to remove a deeming cap on the monthlyincome of an employee and extend to them compensation onthe basis of the actual monthly wages drawn by them.However, there is nothing to indicate that the Legislatureintended for the benefit to extend to accidents that tookplace prior to the coming into force of the amendment.”12. The aforesaid observations are coming in light of object ofamendment and particularly, deletion of Explanation II fromoriginal Act and insertion of Clause (1-B). Considering aforesaidexposition of law, compensation will have to be worked outconsidering actual salary of deceased. As per service certificateplaced at U-17 on record of Commissioner, last pay of deceased isshown to be Rs.26,000/-. As such, there cannot be dispute onaforesaid aspect. It is also not in dispute that relevant factor of3AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 221. (8) fa-2759-2024194.64 would be applicable as age of late Narendra was 36 years atthe time of his death.13.The compensation will have worked out by applyingprovisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act,which prescribes that where death results from the injury, anamount equal to 50% of monthly wages required to be multiplied byrelevant factor. Taking this formula, in light of aforesaid findingsas to wages and applicability of relevant factors, compensationpayable would be Rs.13,000/- X 194.64 = Rs.25,30,320/- alongwithsimple interest @ 12% per annum, as prescribed under Section 4-A(3) of Employees’ Compensation Act. In result, following order:ORDERa.First Appeal No.2759/2024 stands dismissed.b.First Appeal No.234/2024 is partly allowed.c.The appellants (original claimants) in First AppealNo.234/2024 are held entitled for total compensation ofRs.25,30,320/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand ThreeHundred Twenty only) alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annumfrom the date of accident till realization of amount.d.The respondents shall deposit aforesaid compensationamount alongwith interest with Commissioner for EmployeesCompensation, Nanded within a period of two months from today. (9) fa-2759-2024e.The amount paid/deposited in pursuance to impugned orderdated 06.11.2023 shall be appropriated. f.On deposit of aforesaid compensation amount, same beequally apportioned amongst claimant nos.1 to 5.g.The amount falling to the share of minor claimant nos.2 to 5be invested in Fixed Deposits till they attained majority. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/April-2025