2020 INSC 0655
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).1836 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (C) No(s).33445 of 2014)
POONAM DEVI AND OTHERS             ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The   appellants   are   the   legal   heirs   of   the   deceased.   They   were
granted   compensation   of   Rs.4,45,420/­   with   interest   at   the   rate   of
12   per   cent   by   the   Commissioner,   Workmen’s   Compensation   Act
from  the date of accident up to  the  date of  deposit in  addition to  a
penalty   imposed   on   the   employer   under   Section   4A(3)(b)   of   the
Workmen’s   Compensation   Act,   1923   (hereinafter   called   “the   Act”).
The   High   Court   on   09.05.2014   has   allowed   the   appeal   of   the
1

respondent   holding   that   the   death   occurred   during   the   course   of
employment but did not arise out of the employment. 
2.  The   deceased   was   aged   21   years,   in   the   employment   of
respondent   no.2   (since   deleted),   and   was   driving   her   TATA   407
vehicle   bearing   registration   No.UP   15P   1689   on   11.06.2003   from
Ambala to Meerut, a distance of approximately 200 Kms.   At about
12.30   PM,   when   he   approached   the   bridge   near   village   Fatehpur,
the   deceased   went   to   the   Yamuna   canal   to   fetch   water  and   also   to
have a bath.  Unfortunately, he slipped into the canal and died. The
vehicle   was   insured   with   the   respondent   Insurance   Company.
P.W.2, who was standing near the bridge, deposed that the deceased
had gone to fetch water in a can along with the cleaner who tried to
save   him,   but   both   slipped   into   the   canal.     The   Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner by order dated 12.12.2005 allowed the
claim as aforesaid.
3. The High Court in appeal by the Insurance Company held that
the   deceased   may   have   died   during   the   course   of   the   employment
but   death   did   not   arise   out   of   the   employment,   as   bathing   in   the
2

canal was not incidental to the employment but was at the peril of
the workman.  There was no casual connection between the death of
the   workman   and   his   employment.   He   had   gone   to   fetch   water   for
personal   consumption   and   it   was   not   his   case   that   the   truck   was
over heated.
4. Mr.   Vikas   Bhadana,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,
submitted that there was a causal connection of the death with the
employment.   In the extreme heat of the month of June at noon, a
presumption would arise that the deceased  had gone to the canal to
fetch   water  not   only   to   cool  the   truck   but   also  himself   to   ensure   a
proper and safe journey of the vehicle belonging to the employer and
his   own   safety.     Reliance   was   placed   on   Leela   Bai   and   anr.   vs.
Seema Chouhan and anr.,  (2019) 4 SCC 325.
5.  Mr.   Ajay   Singh,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   opposing
the   appeal,   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   rightly   held   that
there was no  casual  connection  between  the death  of  the deceased
with the employment.   Merely because death may have occurred in
3

the course of the employment will not suffice unless it is established
that   it   was   incidental   and   arose   out   of   the   employment.     Reliance
was   placed   on   Malikarjuna   G.   Hiremath   vs.   Branch   Manager,
Oriental   Insurance   Company   Limited   and   another ,   (2009)   13
SCC 405.
6. We   have   considered   the   submission   on   behalf   of   the   parties
and   have   also   perused   the   impugned   orders   as   also   the   case   law
cited before us.
7. The   Workmen’s   Compensation   Act,   1923   (now   christened   as
“Employee’s   Compensation   Act,   1923”)   is   a   piece   of   socially
beneficial   legislation.     The   provisions   will   therefore   have   to   be
interpreted   in   a   manner   to   advance   the   purpose   of   the   legislation,
rather   than   to   stultify   it.     In   case   of   a   direct   conflict,   when   no
reconciliation   is   possible,   the   statutory   provision   will   prevail   only
then.
4

8. Relevant to the discussion is Section 3 of the Act. The relevant
extract reads as follows:
“3. Employer' s liability for compensation.­
(1)   If   personal   injury   is   caused   to   a   workman   by
accident   arising   out   of   and   in   the   course   of   his
employment,   his   employer   shall   be   liable   to   pay
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter: 
                                XXXX”
9. In   Manju Sarkar & Ors. vs. Mabish Miah & Ors. , (2014) 14
SCC   21,   the   deceased   was   driving   the   employer’s   truck   from
Agartala to Churaibari FCI godown.  When he reached near Dharam
Nagar,   he   got   down   to   make   arrangements   for   repairing   some
mechanical  problems   in  the   truck  when   he   was  hit   on  the   road  by
another   vehicle   and  died   in   the   hospital.     Applying   the   principle   of
notional extension, it was held that death occurred in the course of
employment   relying   upon   B.E.S.T.   Undertaking   vs.   Agnes,   AIR
1964 SC 193, at paragraph 12
“Under   Section 3(1)   of the Act the injury must be
caused   to   the   workman   by   an   accident   arising
out of and in the course of his employment. The
question,   when   does   an   employment   begin   and
when   does   it   cease,   depends   upon   the   facts   of
each   case.   But   the   Courts   have   agreed   that   the
5

employment   does   not   necessarily   end   when   the
“down tool” signal is given or when the workman
leaves the actual workshop where he is working.
There   is   a   notional   extension   at   both   the   entry
and   exit   by   time   and   space.   The   scope   of   such
extension   must   necessarily   depend   on   the
circumstances   of   a   given   case.   As   employment
may   end   or   may   begin   not   only   when   the
employee   begins   to   work   or   leaves   his   tools   but
also   when   he   used   the   means   of   access   and,
egress to and from the place of employment.”
10. More recently in   Daya Kishan Joshi & Anr. vs. Dynemech
Systems Pvt. Ltd. , (2018) 11 SCC 642, the deceased was employed
as   an   engineer   for   promoting   sales   and   installation   of   products
which   required   him   to   move   around   in   the   field.     While   returning
from field work, he met with an accident resulting in death.  Holding
that   his   being   on   the   road   related   to   the   nature   of   his   duties,   not
only  the injury  was caused during  the currency  of the employment
but also arose out of the employment.
11. Coming   to   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the   deceased   was
driving   the   truck   of   respondent   no.2   from   Ambala   to   Meerut.
Indisputably he was in the course of his employment.   We can take
judicial   notice   of   the   fact   that   considering   the   manufacturer’s
6

specification,   the   cabin   of   the   truck   was   not   air   conditioned   and
would have been a baking oven in the middle of the afternoon in the
sultry   monsoon   heat   of   June   2003,   when   the   temperature   was
touching 42.6 0
C in Yamunagar (Haryana) (source: weatheronline.in).
It was a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not only
to   protect   the   truck   of   respondent   no.2   from   damage   but   also   to
ensure   a   smooth   journey   and   protect   his   own   life   by   safe   driving.
We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the possibility of the
truck   also   requiring   water   to   prevent   overheating   cannot   be
completely   ruled   out.     In   these   circumstances,   can   it   be   said   that
the act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water in a can
for the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before continuing the
journey was not incidental to the employment?   Every action of the
driver   of  a  truck   to   ensure   the   safety   of   the   truck   belonging   to   the
employer and to ensure his own safety by a safe journey for himself
has to  be considered as incidental  to the employment by  extension
of   the   notional   employment   theory.     A   truck   driver   who   would   not
keep himself fresh to drive in such heat would be a potential danger
to others on the road by reason of any bonafide errors of judgement
7

by   reason   of   the   heat.   The   theory   of   notional   extension   noticed   in
the   Agnes   (supra)   and   followed   in   Leela   Bai   (supra)   is   extracted
hereunder:
“9. In the facts of the present case and the nature
of   evidence,   there   was   a   clear   nexus   between   the
accident and the employment to apply the doctrine
of   “notional   extension”   of   the   employment
considered in Agnes (supra) as follows:  
“…It   is   now   well­ settled,   however,   that   this   is
subject to the theory of notional extension of the
employer’s   premises   so   as   to   include   an   area
which   the   workman   passes   and   repasses   in
going to and in leaving the actual place of work.
There may be some reasonable extension in both
time and place and a workman may be regarded
as in the course of his employment even though
he   had   not   reached   or   had   left   his   employer’s
premises.   The   facts   and   circumstances   of   each
case   will   have   to   be   examined   very   carefully   in
order   to   determine   whether   the   accident   arose
out  of  and in the course of the employment of a
workman, keeping in view at all time this theory
of notional extension.”
12. In   Leela   Bai   (supra),   the   deceased   having   completed   his
journey   as   a   driver   stayed   back   on   the   roof   of   the   bus   to   ensure
early   scheduled   departure   the   next   morning   by   not   going   home.
While he was coming down the roof of the bus he slipped and died.
It was held at paragraph 7 as follows:
8

“7.   In   the   facts   of   the   case,   and   the   evidence
available,   it   is   evident   that   the   deceased   was
present   at   the   bus   terminal   and   remained   with
the   bus   even   after   arrival   from   Indore   not   by
choice,   but   by   compulsion   and   necessity,
because   of   the   nature   of   his   duties.   The   route
timings   of   the   bus   required   the   deceased   to   be
readily   available   with   the   bus   so   that   the
passenger   service   being   provided   by   Respondent
1   remained   efficient   and   was   not   affected.   If   the
deceased   would   have   gone   home   every   day   after
parking  the bus and returned the next  morning,
the   efficiency   of   the   timing   of   the   bus   service
facility   to   the   travelling   public   would   definitely
have   been   affected,   dependent   on   the   arrival   of
the   deceased   at   the   bus­stand   from   his   house.
Naturally   that   would   bring   an   element   of
uncertainty in the departure schedule of the bus
and   efficiency   of   the   service   to   the   travelling
public   could   be   compromised.   Adherence   to
schedule   by   the  deceased   would   naturally   enure
to   the   benefit   of   Respondent   1   by   enhancement
of   income   because   of   timely   service.   It   is   not
without   reason   that   the   deceased   would   not   go
home   for   weeks   as   deposed   by   the   appellant.
Merely   because   the   deceased   was   coming   down
the roof of the bus after having his meal, cannot
be   considered   in   isolation   and   interpreted   so
myopically   to   hold   that   he   was   off   duty   and
therefore would not be entitled to compensation.”
13. We see no reason why the application of the theory of notional
extension   will   therefore   not   apply   in   the   facts   of   the   present   case
also.
9

14. Malikarjuna  (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the
deceased   had   completed   his   journey   from   Siraguppa   to   the
Gurugunta Angreshwar temple, after which he went to the pond and
while   taking   a   bath   slipped   and   drowned.   The   case   is   completely
distinguishable on its own facts.
15. We,   therefore,   find   the   order   of   the   High   Court   to   be
unsustainable.     It   is   set   aside.     The   order   of   the   Workmen’s
Compensation   Commissioner   dated   12.12.2005   is   restored.     The
payments   in   terms   of   the   order   of   the   Workmen’s   Compensation
Commissioner   be   made   to   the   appellants   within   a   period   of   six
weeks   from   today.     Since   respondent   no.2   stands   deleted,   the
question of payment of penalty by her does not arise.
16.   The appeal is allowed.
. ……………………….J.
  (Ashok Bhushan)  
………………………..J.
   (Navin Sinha)  
New Delhi,
March 06, 2020.
10