AGHA AU HYDER, J.-This appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated the 16th of April 1965, arises in the following circumstances :-
2. The facts forming the background of this case are that the deceased Asadullah Khan was employed with the respondents as a supervisor. On the 14th of April 1961, he left his duty after the night shift at I1 p.m. Before he could reach the Bus stop. Which was at soma distance from the respondent's Mill area, he was stabbed by one Mohammad Shireen and succumbed to his injuries.
Mohammad Shireen was tried for the murder along with three other persons. At the trial, it appears that he was convicted and sentenced to death while his companions were acquitted. Mohammad Shireen was a former employee of the respondent-Mill and his services were terminated for having assaulted a co-worker by the name of Mushir Ahmad. Mohammad Shireen was keen on being restored to his job and had requested the Labour Officer of the respondent-Mill in that context. The Labour Officer is stated to have directed Mohammad Shireen to approach Asadullah Khan.
Asadullah Khan had, however, expressed his helplessness in the matter and told Mohammad Shireen that he had directions from the employers not to engage any more Labour. This seems to have infuriated Mohammad Shireen against Asadullah Khan, culminat--ing in this gruesome tragedy.
3. Mst. Zainab, the widow of the deceased Asadullah Khan, later on made an application under section 8 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the Court of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Karachi. The application, however, was dismissed by the latter on the 22nd of June 1963, on the ground that the incident had taken place outside the premises of the employers and, therefore, was not an accident arising out of and In the course of the employment. An appeal was filed under section 30 of the aforesaid Act in this Court and the judgment given therein has been Impugned before us.
4. The learned Single .Fudge confined himself to the proposi--tion whether the Injury caused to Asadullah Khan could be termed--to be an accident within the meaning of section 4 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act which reads as under :- "If personal injury 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 aecordance--with the provisions of this Chapter."
The learned Single Judge examined the proposition enunciated in the case of Board of Management of ,Trim Joint District School v. Kelly (1) and preferred the view taken by the minority on the consideration that if the injury had been sustained from design or pre-arrangement, it c3uld not be termed to be an accident, regardless of the fact, whether the design was of the injured himself or some body else.
5. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, IInd Edition, Vol. 34, paragraph 1171, page 838: "Injuries caused to a workman, while in the course of his employment by wilful act of another person, cannot generally be regarded as arising out of the employment, whether the act be done maliciously or in fun and whether by a fellow workman, by an employer or by a stranger, but the case is different, where the risk of injury at the hands of such evil--disposed or mischievous persons, may be regarded as an incident of his employment."
6. In Fenton v. Thorlay (2), it was held that "accident cannot be applied to accident arising out of wilful crime."
7. Even in Board of Management of Trim Joint District School and Kelly, referred to earlier, Viscount Haldane L. C., while describing an accident as "the kind, which is unlooked for and sudden, and causes personal injury", went on to add, "and is qualified by this, that it must arise out of and in the course of employment".
8. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things to examine, whether Asadullab Khan met his death in an "accident" arising out and in the course of his employment.
9. In R. v. National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Commis sioner, Ex parte, Richardson (3), the applicant, Cliffor--Richardson, was employed as an omnibus conductor by Salford Corporation. On August 7, he was standing in his uniform od the platform of his bus making the way bills, when the driven of the bus, attracted by a number of youths standing in thr roadway, stopped the bus and two of the youths jumped on to ite platform. One of them kicked the applicant in the stomachs The applicant rolled over the floor and struck his head against. The stairs of the bus, receiving injuries on his head and the right eye. The applicant claimed disablement benefits but that was refused by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Commissioner, because the evidence led before him was to the effect that the youths had misbehaved with other passers-by also, and that the applicant had not been singled out by reason of any particular circumstances connected with his employment. The view taken by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Commissioner was armed in the aforesaid judgment.
10. In Poulton v. Kelsall (4), the applicant was storeman. In July 1911, there was a strike by the carters in the organiza4 tion he was serving. The applicant was requested by the Manager of the respondent-company to drive a lorry to bring
(1) 1914 A C 667(2) 1903 A C 443
(3) (1958) 2 All E L R 689(4) 106 L T R 522 goods from the Railway Station. The applicant had assurances from the Manager that if he came to any harm at the hands of the strikers as a consequence of his employment, the respondent-- eompany would do their duty and indemnify him against all harms. The applicant, as a result of this assurance, took out the lorry and nothing went wrong on that day. The next day also he took out the lorry but when he was going at about the mid-day on foot to his house for meals and was passing through the market, he was waylaid by a number of strike pickets, and received injuries on various parts of his body, necessitating the performance of an operation and rendering idleness for a while. The employers' assurances being honoured in breach, the matter went to the Court. Cozen Hardy, M. R., in the course of the judgment observed that the workman was not within the protection of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (which is almost analogous to our Compensation Act) when he goes out from his employer's place of business The same view was expressed by Fletcher Moulton, L. J. Buckley, L. J., observed "that was a special agreement which enlarged the liability of the employer. But it did not alter at all the scope of the employment . . . . . . . . . . . . .He had left his employment and was going home."
11. In Blake v. Head (1), the applicant had joined the service of respondent as an errand boy. He was informed earlier by his father that Head had been in a lunatic asylum and being dangerous, he should do nothing to irritate him. In spite of this warning, the boy took the employment. One day while he was attending to his work under the &rectlon of Mrs. Head, he was attacked by Head with a chopper and seriously injured. It was held that Head must be taken to have been a sane man at the time, as he had been discharged from the asylum. It was held by Cozens Hardy, M. R.a "if the appellant had been working as an attendant at the lunatic asylum and had been attacked by a patient, there might have been ground for saying that it was an accident arising out of, as being incidental to his employment", but as the matter stood, there was no accident at all, but an international felonious act and certainly did not arise out of the employment. Buckley, L. J., observed that "felonious act done by an employer" cannot, by any possible straining of language, be called an accident arising out of the employment."
12. In Maqsoodan Nisa and others v. Messrs Indo-Pakistan Corporation Limited, Karachi (2), the deceased Asghar Ali was crushed by a truck while he was going to his house to take his meals in t4i a afternoon. The findings of the Sub-Judge was that at the material time, the deceased was not doing any work for the respondent-company. The appeal filed was dismissed on the ground that as he was not doing any out-door job of the respondent-company, the accident did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. tl) 106 All L T R 922(2) PLD 1961 Kar. 219
13. In Messrs Datsun Service Station, Karachi v. Abdul AZIZ (1), the deceased while working at the factory, indulged in a joke with a co-worker. The latter took umbrage and dealt a fatal blow with a knife. It was held that "the deceased contributed by his ewn action and conduct to the peril which had no causal action with his employment", and therefore, the heirs were not entitled to any compensation.
14. It is an admitted position, that the tragedy occurred, outside the premises of the respondent- Mill, shortly after Asadullah Khan, had finished his duty fn the night shift. Irf that eventuality, even the notional extension of the employer's premises cannot be availed of by the appellant.
15. According to Will's Compensation Act, 36th Edition at page 24: "As a general rule, a man's employment, does not begin until he has reached the place, where he has to work, or the ambit, scope and scene of his duty, and it does not continue, after he has left it and the period of going and r:turning are generally excluded."
16. The observations in Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Mst. Samundra Begum and others (2), are to the same effect.
17. We are in respectful agreement with the views of the learned Single Judge, that Asadullah Khan, did not die in an accident. At any rate, the death did not occur, arising out of or g in the course of employment. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal, but with no orders as to costs.