Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the employer, the Proprietor of Pure Dhansar Coal Company and it is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated the 22nd November, 1963, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 248 of 1962. That appeal had been filed under Sec.30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. 8 of 1923) by the present appellant and it was dismissed by the learned Judge. 2. The case has a chequered career as follows: The respondent had met with an accident on the 11th December, 1956, in a colliery owned by the appellant, where he was working as an electrician. By order dated the 14th August, 1958, the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act dismissed the respondents claim to compensation. The respondent filed an appeal in this Court, which was numbered as miscellaneous Appeal No. 616 of 1958. By judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 23rd February, 1962, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for re-consideration in accordance with the observations made by this Court in its judgment. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, by his order dated the 14th July, 1962, has allowed compensation to the respondent amounting to Rs. 4900.00 minus a sum of Rs. 411-9-3 pies, which the respondent had already received. Against that order the employer had come up in appeal to this court. 3. The short facts are as follows: --The respondent had alleged that on the llth December, 1956, he had been directed by Sri R. K. Mukherji, the Manager, and Sri Indra Kumar Agarwal, the proprietor of the Company, to take a pump and bed-plate into the colliery under ground on an open trolley and he has been asked to finish the work of fitting up the pump and bed-plate by 2 p. m. of that day. Accordingly, the respondent took those articles on a trolley by tying them with rope. At the place where the trolley was kept for fitting the pump, there was a sharp incline, and the trolley was kept stationery by means of a rope tied to the trolley. Accordingly, the respondent took those articles on a trolley by tying them with rope. At the place where the trolley was kept for fitting the pump, there was a sharp incline, and the trolley was kept stationery by means of a rope tied to the trolley. Some of the men were holding the trolley in position, but the rope gave way and the trolley began to move down fast and ultimately it dashed against the buffer throwing him down and causing him injury in the spine. It was alleged that as a result of the accident, the respondent was totally disabled and was incapable of doing any work. The appellants case, amongst others, was that when the respondent had got on the trolley, he had been asked not to do so, and while the trolley was being held by ropes, the ropes slipped with the result that the trolley moved downwards and the respondent fell down. 4. After remand, the Presiding Officer has held by his order dated the 14th July. 1962, that the accident had occurred because the ropes fastening the trolley were weak and not because the respondent had got upon the trolley. The learned single Judge has held that at the time when the respondent had met with the accident, he was performing his duties in the course or his employment and; therefore, the order for payment of compensation was affirmed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the injury had not been caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Sec.3 of the Workmens Compensation Act. Further, it is contended that under proviso (b) (ii) of that sub-section, the employer was not liable to pay compensation as the workman had wilfully disobeyed Regulation No. 95 (2) of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations. 1926, which was a rule framed for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, without a written permission of the manager. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel, Section 3 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act and Regulation No. 95 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations arc quoted below:- - Sec.3 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act. "3. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel, Section 3 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act and Regulation No. 95 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations arc quoted below:- - Sec.3 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act. "3. (1) If personal injury is caused (o a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable:- - (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen." Regulation No. 95 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 "95 (1). No person shall permit a tub or tube to run uncontrolled except with the consent of the manager; Provided that the Chief Inspector may, by order in writing, prohibit the uncontrolled movement of tube at any place where, in his opinion, there would be danger of injury to persons. (2) No person shall vide on any tub, truck or wagon, either underground or above ground, except with the written permission of the manager." for the contention that the injury had not been caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the workmans employment, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Powell G. and A. Ghany Co. V/s. Panehu Mokadam, MR 1942 Pat 453, and the case of Steel Products Ltd. V/s. Amelda, AIR 1951 Cal 145 . But, in my opinion, these decisions do not lay down any principle which can be of assistance to the appellant on the facts of this case. V/s. Panehu Mokadam, MR 1942 Pat 453, and the case of Steel Products Ltd. V/s. Amelda, AIR 1951 Cal 145 . But, in my opinion, these decisions do not lay down any principle which can be of assistance to the appellant on the facts of this case. As stated earlier, the learned single Judge has held that the respondent was performing his duly in the course of his employment, and in my opinion, no case has been made out for reversing that conclusion. Upon the interpretation of the proviso under consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon the case of Mt. Champi V/s. Shaw Wallace and Co. AIR 1937 Nag 397. Even if the workman had disobeyed Regulation No. 95 (2), that could not have exonerated the employers liability to compensation on the ground that the workman had not met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment The proviso to Sec.3 (1) of the Act states that the employer shall not be liable in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to the wilful disobedience to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety of workmen, and it is not possible to interpret this proviso to mean that if the workman had disobeyed such a rule, at the time of the accident, the accident could not have arisen out of and in the course of his employment by that reason alone. For instance, if the workman had been guilty of wilful disobedience to such a rule and he had met with an accident resulting in death, this particular proviso would not apply. Can it be said, under that circumstance, that the death had not been caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment ? Obviously the answer is in the negative. If the interpretation put by their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court is correct, and I think that their Lordships have laid down the principle correctly, then the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant must fail. 7 Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Regulations have a statutory force and mere absence of knowledge cannot exonerate the workmen from liability thereunder. 7 Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Regulations have a statutory force and mere absence of knowledge cannot exonerate the workmen from liability thereunder. The question does not arise any more at this stage, because in the order of remand passed by this Court on the 23rd February, 1962, it was stated that even on the assumption that there was wilful disobedience of Regulation No. 95 (2), the Commissioner had to find as to whether the act of wilful disobedience was the immediate or direct came of the accident or not. Thereafter, it has been held, by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, by his order dated the 14th July, 1962, that, the accident had occurred because the ropes fastening the trolley were weak and not because the workman had got upon the trolley. This appeal must proceed on that footing and it is not possible to hold at this stage that as the respondent must be imputed with knowledge of the Regulations, the appellant is free from liability altogether. 8. For the reasons given above, the appeal must fail and it is dismissed with costs. R.L.Narasimham, J. 9 I agree.