Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 18th August, 1999 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. Aggrieved against that order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner was a flight purser of the Indian Airlines and he has been serving since 1968. On 4th April, 1996 the petitioner was on duty on Flight No. IC-770. This flight on the said while scheduled to take off for Calcutta from Bhubaneswar developed some technical fault, the flight could not take off. The Indian Airlines made arrangements for lodging all passengers and crew members in a hotel at Bhubaneswar. At Bhubaneswar the petitioner fell down inside the hotel and broke his leg. Thereafter he was taken to Calcutta by the next day morning flight. The petitioner claimed for accident and disability leave for 92 days from 15th April, 1996 to 5th July, 1996 as applicable under Regulation 135 of the Indian Airlines Employees' Service Regulations. The petitioner also claimed compensation. The petitioner by the communication dated 11/14th October, 1996 was informed by the Senior Manager (Personnel) that his application for sanction of the accident and disability leave was examined and the same could not be accepted as per Rules. The prayer of the petitioner for compensation was also rejected by the authority.
3. Regulations 135 and 136 of the Indian Airlines Employees' Service Regulations read as under:
135. Accident and disability leave.- (1) Employee sustaining an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment, or by illness occurred-
(i) during the course of and in consequence of the due performance of the duties assigned to him, or (ii) in the performance of any particular duty which has been the effect of increasing his liability to illness beyond the ordinary risk of attending the normal duties assigned to him may on production of a medical certificate in the prescribed form be granted accident and disability leave upto a maximum of one hundred and twenty days (120 days).(2) During the period of leave granted under Sub-regulation (1) the employee shall be entitled to his full pay: Provided that an employee who is unable to resume duty after the expiry of the leave granted under this regulation, may be granted, at the discretion of the Managing Director, an extension of such leave on full pay for a period not exceeding two hundred and seventy-four (274) days. If a medical board constituted by the Corporation for the purpose, recommends such extension. The Corporation shall meet the cost of medical treatment of the employees in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 161.
136. The grant of leave is subject to the condition that the accident or illness is not due to the employee's negligence or default and that the employee obeys all instructions given by the approved medical authority as to treatment during the period of absence.
4. It may also be relevant to mention here that an anonymous complaint was received against the petitioner that on the relevant day the petitioner and other members of the crew were consuming liquor in a room of the hotel and the petitioner fell down and received fracture. The petitioner was asked to explain about this anoymous complaint. The petitioner was asked to send his reply and he replied to this communication stating that in fact he slipped and fell down in front of bathroom and fractured his right femur and he denied the allegation that he was drunk and fell down in the hotel and sustained injury. The authorities were not satisfied and warned the petitioner to be careful in future by communication dated 16th September, 1996 and they also rejected the claim of the petitioner for sanction of accident and disability leave for the period from 5.4.1996 to 5.7.1996, therefore the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petition also filed some subsequent documents on record to show that the petitioner asked the authorities to give the name of the person who had filed the so-called anonymous complaint and he checked up with the Hotel Register and found that no such passenger was staying on the relevant date in the hotel bearing that anonymous complaint on that date.
5. The learned Single Judge also directed the authorities to produce the list of the passengers travelling in the flight but such documents were not placed on record. The petitioner also filed an affidavit with certain instances that in a similar circumstance when employees of the Airlines sustained injuries while coming to the Airport or going to the Airport then the Indian Airlines authorities had granted them disability leave and he quoted the instances of certain airhostess and flight pursers. He gave the names of those persons which was not controverted by the respondent/Indian Airlines. He pointed out that one Mrs. Manjula Ghosh, airhostess suffered accident on 4.9.1988 in Calcutta when a taxi overturned in course of her transit to the airport for joining her duty. She was granted the disability leave. Likewise, Ms. T.C. Bhutia also suffered accident enroute to airport in a I.A. transport which collided with another vehicle. Likewise, Ms. Saswati Chakraborty also suffered a similar injury and she was also granted accident and disability leave. So far as the petitioner is concerned the order was passed denying him the accident and disability leave without mentioning any reason. It appears that in the back of the mind of the authorities perhaps it was anonymous complaint. But that complaint cannot be taken into consideration by the authorities. If they were keen to reach to the root of the matter they could have held regular enquiry to establish the cause of the accident that whether it was under the influence of liquor or in ordinary course the incumbent slipped. Unless the anonymous complaints are substantiated by proper evidence then it is very dangerous to act upon such anonymous complaint. It is not unlikely that such anonymous might be motivated. Therefore, normally such anonymous complaints are not acted upon unless they are established beyond doubt in a regular enquiry.
6. Now coming to the merit of the matter, from the Regulations 135 and 136 as we have already reproduced, it clearly transpires that incumbents are entitled to the benefit of accident and disability leave if they sustain injury caused by accident arising out of or in course of employment, or illness occurred during the course or in consequence of the due performance of duties assigned or in performance of any particular duty which has the effect of increasing his liability to illness beyond ordinary risk of attending the normal duties assigned to him on production of medical certificate in prescribed form to the extent of 120 days. Regulation 136 says that grant of such leave is subject to the condition that accident or illness is not due to the employee's negligence or default. Therefore, the question is whether at the time when he was detained at Bhubaneswar was in course of employment or not. Regulation 136 lays down three things: i) that the injury sustained to the employees by an accident in course of the employment; ii) during the course of and in consequence of due performance of the duties assigned to him; or iii) in the performance of any particular duty. So far as the factum of the accident is concerned, there is no dispute. Secondly, whether it arose in course of the employment or not. It is also not disputed that the incumbent with all the flight crew were put up in a hotel overnight at Bhubaneswar because the aircraft developed a snag. It is not the case that the petitioner out of his pleasure was staying at Bhubaneswar. Therefore, when he was staying at Bhubaneswar on account of snag developed in the aircraft, he was in course of employment.
7. The learned Single Judge however gave a very narrow meaning to the expression 'in course of employment'. As pointed out above that his stay at Bhubaneswar was not at his pleasure and it was during the course of employment. If the aircraft had not developed the snag the petitioner would have flown back to his destination. But since the aircraft developed a snag he had to stay back. It is not that the flight purser fell down in the aircraft or on the stairs while getting down from the aircraft during the course of employment. In this particular case the petitioner's stay at Bhubaneswar was in course of the employment and not at his sweet will. Therefore the stay of the petitioner at Bhubaneswar shall be deemed to be in course of employment. The petitioner has given a couple of examples and produced necessary orders whereby it has been found that the management had given it as an extended meaning of the course of employment when the airhostess on her way to airport met with an accident, she was given the compensation under the provision, i.e. Regulation 135 by giving it an extended meaning. The learned Single Judge has given it a very narrow meaning to show that the stay of the incumbent at Bhubaneswar was not in course of employment, that is not correct. In this connection, learned Counsel has invited our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, BEST Undertaking, Bombay v. Agnes reported in : (1963)IILLJ615SC . This was a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is almost analogous with that of Regulation 135 and there in that case Their Lordships observed that the employment does not necessarily end when the 'down tool' signal is given or when the workmen leaves the actual workshop where he is working. Their Lordships observed:
There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. An employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his took but also when he used means of access and egress to and from the place of employment.
8. Their Lordships referred to various English decisions on the subject and pointed out that through the judicial precedent various tests have been laid down to examine the matter and one of the tests which is nearer home laid down by Lord Romer (in the case of Weaver v. Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. Ltd. 1940(3) All ER 157 at page 175 which reads as under:
In all cases, therefore, where a workman, on going to, or on leaving his work, suffers an accident on the way, the first question to be determined is whether workmen was at the place where the accident occurred in virtue of his status as a workman or in virtue of his status as a member of the public.
9. Therefore, 0ne has to see that when the incumbent was staying at Bhubaneswar because of the snag developed in the aircraft, he was staying as an employee of the Indian Airlines, or as a member of the public. Answer is that he was staying as an employee of the Indian Airlines because of the snag developed in the aircraft of the Indian Airlines at Bhubaneswar. If this is accepted then the answer is, the petitioner received injuries during the course of employment.
10. The next question is whether he received injury in the accident contributed by himself or by an accident. If the Indian Airlines Authorities wanted to probe the matter in detail to find out whether it was an accident or this accident was actuated under the influence of liquor then the proper course for the Indian Airlines was to have a regular enquiry held on the basis of the anonymous complaint. But the regular enquiry was not held and action was taken on the basis of an anonymous complaint, then it is absolutely illegal as the petitioner was not given due opportunity, it is totally illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Our attention was also invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court given in the case of Parle Products Limited v. Subir Mukherjee reported in 2000(2) CHN 768. This was also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Division Bench of this Court in this case after examining the matter with reference to various tests laid down by the Apex Court and the decision of the English Courts held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct and we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as required under Regulation 135 of the Regulations.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
13. No order as to costs.
14. If urgent xerox certified copies of this order is applied for, the same may be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
15. I agree.
Later:
16. Learned Counsel for the respondent prayed for stay of the order. The same is considered and refused.