THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.575 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the children of Velpula Subbaram, who was employed with the South Central Railway as a Gangman to work at Nandalur. They filed W.C.Case No.10 of 2001 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (for short ‘the Commissioner’), stating that Subbaram died in an accident while returning home on 27.12.2001 after collecting salary. It was pleaded that the salary was paid at Nandalur and when he was returning to Cherlopalli, his native place, he met with an accident while crossing the railway track on account of being hit by the goods train. He was said to be aged 43 years at the time of accident and that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,849/- per month. The case was resisted by the appellants. They pleaded that the death of Subbaram cannot be said to be in the course of employment and that there is nothing on record to disclose that the deceased died while on duty. Through its order, dated 31.07.2002, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,540/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed as a Gangaman with the appellants. However, the appellants contend that the death of the deceased did not occur in the course of employment. On behalf of respondents 1 to 5, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 viz., true copy of F.I.R., Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, pay slip and paper clipping, were filed. On behalf of the appellants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was filed. The 1st respondent deposed as A.W.1 and she is not an eye- witness. Her statement was to the effect that the deceased died while coming home after collecting salary. A.W.2 is another employee of the Railways and he stated that the deceased left the office at Nandalur after collecting the salary. He further stated that the superior officer of the deceased instructed him to attend the work at post No.33/1112. Nothing objectionable was elicited from this witness. R.W.1 is A section Engineer at Nandalur. He stated that the deceased was not required by any superior officer to attend the work at post No.33/1112. However, he admitted that the deceased died on the Railway Track only. Though the office at Nandalur may have closed at 5:00 or 5:30 pm, the employee who works therein can be said to be in the employment till he reaches home. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the time, which an employee takes to reach home after the office hours, is to be treated as extended period of working. An independent witness viz., A.W.2 stated that the deceased was entrusted with the work after he collected salary. Even if that is to be ignored, the fact remains that the deceased died before he reached home, after collecting the salary. The Commissioner has arrived at just and proper conclusion that the deceased died in the course of employment. He applied the correct parameters and awarded the compensation. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/-. __________ 08.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.575 of 2003 Date: 08.12.2011 JSU