THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1420 of 1991 Date: 08-7-2010 Between Prakash Benher … Appellant/Opposite Party-I and 1. G.Ayyanna … Respondent/Applicant 2. BHEL Rolling Mills Zone, Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents/ Opposite Parties-II and III THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1420 of 1991 Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Appeal arises under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated 31-01-1991 in W.C.No.34 of 1990 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Visakhapatnam directing the appellant herein along with Opposite Parties-II and III to pay a sum of Rs.19,065/- to the applicant as against the claim of Rs.41,438=25 ps., towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident while he was out of and during the course of employment as a Security Guard under the appellant, who was a Sub-Contractor of Opposite Party-II. 3. The appellant is Opposite Party-I, respondent No.1 is the applicant and respondents 2 and 3 are Opposite Parties-II and III, respectively, before the Commissioner. 4. The case of the applicant was that he was coming from his house at around 8 p.m., in order to attend his duties as Security Guard at the work spot. At around 9 p.m., while he was just approaching the work spot he had fallen into a ditch and sustained a serious injury on the left knee, as a result he is unable to perform his regular duties, hence he made the claim. 5. The Tribunal having recorded the evidence and appreciating the same, had pointed out that there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and Opposite Parties-II and III, whereas Opposite Party-I, who is the appellant herein, was the Sub-Contractor and he had been supplying the workmen including the security guards. In fact, there is a privity of contract between the applicant and the appellant. Therefore, for all purposes the appellant is the employer insofar as the applicant is concerned. 6. The only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is -- whether the accident took place out of and during the course of employment ? 7. Point:- In this connection, it is to be seen that as deposed by the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant that the applicant had started at his house at around 8 p.m., and his duty commences for the third shift i.e., from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m. He was proceeding on a cycle to his office to take charge for the third shift as a security guard. In other words, he proceeded to the office in order to perform his duties as a security guard. 8. Normally, any employee performing such duties, for that matter any other employee working on shifts would proceed to the work place some time in advance. In this case also, the applicant left the house at around 8 p.m., and by the time he was nearing his work place it was 9 p.m. His duty commences from 10 p.m. 9. A workman comes normally in advance in order to complete the other formalities like taking charge from the other person, who is on duty etc. Therefore, the applicant was some time in advance before he actually takes up his duty commencing at 10 p.m. This travelling from the house is to be treated as ‘out of and during the course of employment’ because he was proceeding to the work place in order to perform his duty. The period of preparation to take charge of the duties shall be included to the period of the work hours, inasmuch as, he left the house in advance only for the benefit of the employer but certainly not to his benefit. Therefore, that period which takes for the preparation to come to the work place and while leaving the work place, it should be treated as staying of the workman beyond the working hours as the workman is during the course of employment. 10. Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, it is only for the services to the employer since the applicant was proceeding, such period shall be treated as ‘out of and during the course of employment’. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforementioned reasons, I do not feel anything on record to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 08th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1420 of 1991 08th July, 2010. (Ak)