Court rules drowning not work-related; employer not liable for compensation. Appellant wins appeal, directed to pay costs.

The court ruled that the drowning of workmen while crossing a creek to reach the employer's premises did not occur in the course of employment, absolving the appellant of liability for compensation. Despite the initial compensation award, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to pay the respondents' costs. The lack of a formal arrangement for ferrying workmen and the absence of a special employment-related agreement were key factors in the decision to overturn the compensation order. Each party was responsible for its own costs related to the proceedings on remand.

---

---

Issues:
Determining liability for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act based on the circumstances of a work-related accident involving drowning of workmen while crossing a creek to reach the employer's premises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Undertaking for Special Leave to Appeal:
The appellant was granted special leave to appeal on the condition of not claiming a refund of compensation already paid and agreeing to pay the respondents' costs. This condition was imposed in relation to an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

2. Background of the Case:
The case involved the Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. and the drowning of workmen employed by the appellant while crossing a creek to reach the salt works. The route to the salt works included crossing the creek from point A to point B, where the accident occurred due to bad weather and overloading.

3. Questions Requiring Findings:
During the appeal, the court sought findings on whether there was an arrangement between the appellant and ferry operators for transporting workmen to the salt works. Additionally, it was to be determined if this arrangement applied to casual workmen as well.

4. Workmen's Compensation Decision:
The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation found the accident to be work-related and awarded compensation to the dependents of the deceased workmen. The High Court upheld this decision after detailed legal analysis.

5. Legal Interpretation of Employment Commencement:
The judgment discussed the concept that employment typically begins and ends at the place of work, excluding the journey to and from work. However, there can be a notional extension of the employer's premises to include areas passed through by the workmen.

6. Examination of Notional Extension Theory:
The court emphasized the need to carefully analyze the facts of each case to determine if an accident arose out of and in the course of employment, considering the theory of notional extension. The circumstances of the accident between points A and B were crucial in this case.

7. Lack of Arrangement for Ferrying Workmen:
Evidence revealed no formal arrangement between the appellant and ferry operators for transporting workmen. Workmen were charged for crossing the creek, and the boats were used by the general public, indicating no special employment-related arrangement.

8. Conclusion on Liability for Compensation:
The court concluded that the accident between points A and B did not occur in the course of employment, absolving the appellant of liability for compensation. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the compensation order, but the appellant was directed to pay the respondents' costs.

9. Final Decision and Costs:
The appeal was allowed, overturning the compensation order. The appellant was required to pay the respondents' costs but could not recover the compensation already paid. Each party was responsible for its own costs related to the proceedings on remand.

---