HISH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DMSJONBINCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRI V.K.SHRiyASTAVA, J. MA(Cl No. 358 of2006 APPEI-1-ANT S.M. Nagdeve, S/oM.B. Nagdeve, NON-APPyCANT aged 48 yeasrs, Ex-Manager Raipur Alloys Company Limited, Raipur Sittara, Dongar Boar Pallemadi Mines, Khadgaon, Tah. Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RIESPOJ1DENTS 1. Smt. Satrupa Bai W/^ Late Rajkumar Nai aged 31 years. | 2. Ku.Sumeshvrari D/o Late Rajkumar Nai aged about 12 years 3. Nakul Dev S/o Late Raj Kumar Nai / aged 10years 4. Ku. Bharti D/o Late Raj Kumar Nai aged 08 years. From No.2 to4 are represented by their , Mother Smt. Satrupa Bai W/o Late Rajkumar Nai R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Station-MQhala, Tahsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned counselforthe appetlant. QRALQRDER tPassed on13lR]Ntovember, 2006) Thefollowing oral ortfer ofthe Gourt was passed by S.R.NAYAK.CJ. In this appeal preferred by the employer against the award dated 03-07-20re in Case No. 33/WC Act/ Fatal/2005 passed by the Commissiorier for Workmen's Comperisation, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, VPv) l:il& ^823, th^^lowing substantial questions oflaw are stated to aifee fdr decision-makinfl: i "SybstentgjLgyesfiffli.glMl^g (i) WMether ffi^ cfeath^ crf any^ workman c ynjdentifjedimotQryehicleon putilJGroadafterhisduty will be wjth the deRnition of "accident" under ;?1A?OiFl<rn8n's<!ompensation^t? j ^ s^WVi!^tt^^ <jea^^^ to worlanan by road g ^^eeident afterhis dutywillhayethecasUatconnection ; c wiffi e accM anel wlTSther ttie same can be enveloped within the definition y "in courseof employment"? ! { ^ Oii) Whether the deatft^occ^rred by accid^^^^ road will have the thsory of notfonat extenston of |3remises of employers"? We have heard teamed cbunset for the appellant and perused the impugned award and other material papers laid before us. We are ofthe considered opinion that in thiscase no questipn of law much tess any substantiaf question of law arises for decisjpn-making. The only submissipn ofthe learned counsel^ferthe appellant isthatori thefateftil day tbe deceased-employe®leftWe factory premises with ffie leaveof1:he Managerand he was hit by unknown / unidentified vehicte in the.public road and therefbre, the liability to pay compensation could not be i fastened on ^the employer. There is na substance^^in this contention. 1 Admittedly,sucKapleawasn6ttakenintiiewrittenstatement7ot)jectiohl filed before the Commissioner. Ithas carffe in the Svidence ffiat the ; deceasedempfoyeeonthe^fcttdaywas.vvorkingQnthenJghtshifta^ he wasexpectedto wc^ upto 06.00^ a.m.but^ betvreen05Wa.m-05;4§a.mK6n^23-03-2005, W emptoyeewasjnemploymentandwasyByeraffiobHgatien^^ uptoQS.CXia.m/onfat^lday.fteoyldncrtbesaidthatthedeath^d ;. '^: Klnle- l?^^lilj$^ •SiSSB SiSsSiSB -s>- <K W in<he®ourseof^« Workmen's (^mperisatioh;fti:^^Bei iaf;as^^^^^^ auth(^ty,theGQmmissi(meFhavingappreciatedtheevici6n<»^onrBC;ocd, reeoixted afactyal findingthatth&icieatoo&iuriBdancltUeac^ outQfandtnthewurseofempioyment.ltcannotbesajd^^ finding ofthe Gommissioner is peiy^ree for M^ of^egal^^^^e^ coulditbe;Saidthatitis^entire|yjbased/<)nsumTjseS.andro aRR0alis<i^^c |m8Htaf!clifrisaK!!^ngl^sfflis?ed ^ ^feiS———-—........———ar^E.^^.,'^^ V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Chief Justice ;£" M