Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of the employment' mean 'in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it'. The words 'arising out of employment' are understood to mean that 'during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered'. In other words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression 'arising out of employment' is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently, if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless, of course, the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act."

22. In the case of Superintending Engineer, Parambikulam Aliar Project, Pollachi v. Andammal, (1983-II-LLJ-326), a Lascar appointed to regulate the flow of water in a branch canal by operating upon the sluices and shutters, was done to death at the place of duty by the person against whom he had made the complaint. There was nothing on the record to show that he had added the peril. The Madras High Court in the aforesaid circumstance held that there was causal and proximate connection between the employment and the accident and the accident will be treated to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment and, as such, the applicant is entitled to compensation.