1978 PLP 5 (PLC)

Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)

S. 3‑Deceased employee, while on his way (on cycle) to Mills to join duty, meeting with accident with bus on public road at a place about five miles from Mills resulting in his death in Hospital Death of employee, hell, caused by an accident not "arising out of and in course of his employment and hence father of deceased not entitled to any compensation under Act. U Yan Shin v. Ma E Sein and others A I R 1940 Rang 18; Mst. Maqsoodan Nisa and others v. Indo Pakistan Corporation Ltd., Karachi P L D 1961 Kar. 219 and Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Mst. Samundara Begum and others P L D 1967 Kar. 700 rel. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated, 18‑1‑1977 of Commissio4er for Workmen's Compensation, Sargodha and Mianwali. 2. Abdul Latif, deceased was an employee of Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd., Bhakkar. On 22‑9‑1975 at about 5‑00 a.m. while he was on his way on his cycle to the mills to join duty in the 6‑00 a.m. shift, he met with an accident with a bus, with the result that he was removed to the hospital and died subsequently on the same day. The place of accident was at a distance. of about five miles from the mills. His father Muhammad Sharif, respondent fled an application before the Commissioner for compensation. The Commissioner accepted the application and granted compensation of Rs. 8050 vide order under appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd., appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. The fact narrated above are admitted by both the parties. The point for determination is as to whether the death of Abdul Latif, deceased was a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employ ment. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Rangoon High Court in the case of, U Yan Shin v. Ma E Sein and others (A I R 1940 Rang. 18) wherein it was observed: "In claims for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act the onus lies on the appellant to prove that the accident arises out of employment, and if the evidence is not sufficient to establish this, the claim fails. An accident arises out of employment where it results from a risk incidental to the employment, as distinguished from a risk common to all mankind although the risk incidental to the employment may include a risk common to all mankind. While the work man was going back to the camp in the mining area where he was working, a dead tree fell on him and killed him. The workman was employed for cutting and clearing jungles and bushes or even trees; the tree was at ‑me distance from the place where the workman actually had to work and the accident was of a kind, which any one who happened to pass by the tree at the time would have met with. Held that the falling of the tree on the deceased could not be said to be inherent .in the nature of the employment and the casual relationship between the employment and the falling of the tree could not be properly inferred. Therefore, the accident did not arise upon his employment and hence compensation to dependent of deceased could not .beg awarded." 6. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan in the case of Mst. Maqsoodan Nisa and others v. Indo‑Pakistan Corporation Ltd, Karachi (P L D 1961 Kar. 219). In the above‑noted, as, the deceased, while going out of a bungalow where he was employed, to take afternoon meal not with an accident with a truck. It was alleged that the truck concerned collided against the side gate of the said bungalow, and its pillar fell on the chest of the deceased, causing instantaneous death it was held that his widow was not entitled to receive compensation, because the deceased at the time of the accident was not discharging duties of employment, but was just going out to take his afternoon meal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan in the case, Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. v. Mst. Samundara Begum and others (P L D 1967 Kar. 700), wherein it was observed: "It is, therefore, clear that, as a rule, employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of work and does not continue after he has left that place, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. When a workman is injured in an accident on a public road or at public place or on a public transport, while going to the place of employment or coming there from, he cannot be said to have been injure; by an accident arising out of, or in the course of his employment because he; like any other member of the public takes risks and dangers on the public places and transport unless of course he shows that at the time of accident he was on an errand or was performing a duty connected with his employment. 8. In the present case, the accident took place on a public road when the deceased was neither performing duties connected with his employment nor he was on an errand by his employer. 9. Relying on the above judgments, I hold that the death of the deceased was caused by an accident not arising out of and in the course of his employment. Hence the respondent is not entitled to any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 10. 1, accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner and dismiss the application of the respondent. Appeal accepted.