AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') against the order dated 18.10.1997, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in W.C. Case No. 8 of 1995.
The appellant filed application under the Act for compensation on account of death of her husband on 16.2.1994. Her husband was in railway service and was posted as Switch Man at Rajhara railway station of the Eastern Railways, under its Dhanbad Division.
On 5.2.1994 at about 4 p.m., a group of anti-social elements armed with deadly weapons trespassed the office of the Station Master of the said railway station and damaged the railway property. On the said date, the appellant''s husband was on duty from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and thereafter he left his office and reached his quarter which was near by the railway station, at 4.30 p.m. On hearing halla and sound of firing in the office of the Station Master, he took his licensed gun and proceeded towards the railway station, anticipating some trouble there:
The plea of the applicant that her husband had gone to the office to put his signature on the concerned register and was on duty till 4.30 p.m. was not relied upon the Court below, in face of the statement of the deceased, contained in Exhibit-D, which was his Jardbeyan, wherein he had admitted that he was on duty on the eastern cabin of Rajhara railway station from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. He came to his quarter at 4.30 p.m. and after half an hour of his arrival, he heard halla and firing towards railway station and thereafter he took his licensed gun and proceeded towards the railway station. While he was trying to pacify the mob he got a lathi blow on his head and he was thereafter taken to the hospital for treatment and ultimately he died on 16.2.1994.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below, in our opinion, rightly held that in the present case no accident occurred, while the appellant''s husband was on duty and the incident, wherein he received injury, had also no casual connection with any accident in course of his employment. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, therefore rightly rejected the appellant''s claim for compensation under the Act.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.