GENERAL MANAGER, B. E. S. T. UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY versus MRS. AGNES

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 10-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

196J 
~qy 10. 
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
GENERAL MANAGER, B. E. S. T. 
UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY 
v. 
MRS. AGNES 
(K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
and J. R. MuDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Workmen's Compensation-Accident to a bus driver-If 
occ•:rred •n course of tmployment-Olaim of compenBation b'!I 
widow-Employer, if bound to pay-Workmen'• Compensation 
Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), s. 3 (1)-Standing RuleB, rr, I (e), 
3, 5, 9 (a), 10 (a) (b) (c), 12 (a), 19 (a) (b), 31 (a), 39 (a). 
One P. Nanu Raman was a bus driver of the appellant 
corporation. After finishing the work for the day, he left the 
bus in the depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence 
and the bus met with an accident and, as a result of the in-
juries received in that accident, he died. His widow, the 
'( 
respondent, through an application in the Court of the Com-
mis~doner for Workmen's Compensation, claimed compensation 
by reason of the death of her husband in an accident alleged 
to have arisen ''out of and in the course of his employment". 
The application was dismissed by the Commissioner, but on 
appeal the High Court passed a decree in favour of the widow. 
Section 3 (I) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is 
as follows :-
"If personal lnJury 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 accor-
dance with the provision of this chapter." 
Held (per Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ.), that under 
~the :Rules, a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as 
a driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking, 
presumably, to enable him w keep up punctuality and to 
discharge his oner1Jus obJigations. It is given to him not as a 
grace, but is of right because efficiency of the service demands 
it. Therefore the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in 
q~ger to discharlje his duties punctnally and efficiently was a 
• 
. 
' 
I. 
• 
- • 
3 S.C,R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
931 
condition of his service and there was an implied obligation 
on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty. 
Though the doctrine of reasonable or notional extension 
of employment developed in the context of specific workshops, 
factories or harbours, equally applies to such a bus service the 
doctrine necessarily will have to be adapted to meet its peculiar 
requirements. While in a case of a factory, the premises of 
the employer which gives ingress or egress to the factory is a 
limited one, in the case of a city transport service, by analogy, 
the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the 
"premises" . 
In the present case, therefore, the High Court was right 
in saying that the accident occurred to Nanu Raman during 
the course of his employment and, therefore, the respondent was 
entitled to compensation. 
Cremins v. Guest Keen & NeUlefolds Ltd. [1908] 1 K.B. 
469, St. Helens O,lliery Oo. Ltd. v. Heurfson, [1924] A.C. 59, 
Aderman v. Great Western Rly. Oo. [1937] A.O. 454, Weaver v. 
Tredegar Iron and Goal Oo. Ltd. (1940) 3 All. E.R. 157, Dunn 
, 
v. A.G. Lockwood & Oo., (1947) I All. E.R. 446, Hill v. 
Butterley Oo. Ltd. (1948) 1 All. E.R. 233, Jenkins v. Elder 
Dempster Line• Ltd. (1953) 2 All. E.R. 1133 and Saurashtra 
Salt M"nufacturing Oo. v. Bai Valu Raja, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 
881, held inapplicable. 
Per Raghubar Dayal J.-Rulc 19 cannot be construed 
as a condition of service of the bus-drivers of the corporation 
and, therefore, cannot artificially extend the period of their 
duty and, consequently, the course of employment by the time 
occupied in tr.veiling by the bus if the bus driver after dis-
• charging his duty or on his way to join duty happens to travel 
by bus. 
The present is not a case for notionally extending the 
territorial area of the premises within which they had to di•-
charge their duty. 
It is not possible to hold that the deceased was on duty 
when he was 
travellin~ by the other bus and met with the 
accident and that the accident arose out of and in the course 
of his employment and, therefore, the respondent was not 
entitled to receive any compensation. 
S.8. Manufacturinu Oo. v. Bai Valu R~ja, A.IR. 1958 
... S.C. 881, relied on, 
1963 
B.E. ~.T. Uod.rt. 
ldng Bmnb•y 
•• 
Agn1s 
11.R.s. T. Uni/,,. 
uki., /Jtmhy 
.. 
Agars 
Sdh RaJ. 
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
Denni• v. A. J. White & Oo. [1917] A. 0. 479, St. Hellens 
Colliery Oo. v. Hewit•on, [1924] A.O. 59, Weaver v. Tredegar 
Iron & Coal O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.