S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under sec. 30 of The Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the employer-railway administration against the respondents-original applicants who claim to be the heirs of the deceased workman Himatram Pardeshiram who died in an unfortunate accident in the morning of December 19 1973 when he was crushed by a speeding engine on the railway track near Godhra Railway station. The respondents-claimants had filed Workmen Compensation Application No. 23 of 1974 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Panchmahals at Godhra for realisation of Rs. 8 0 by way of compensation on the ground that the deceased workman died on account of an injury caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on the fateful day. The said application was allowed by the learned Commissioner. That has brought the employer railway administration to this Court by way of the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal are few and far between. The deceased workman Himatram Pardeshiram was a member of Railway Protection Force a Sainik and he was transferred to Baroda from Godhra where he was serving earlier. He was allotted a railway quarter in Loco Shed at Godhra. As the deceased was not allotted a quarter by the railway authorities at Baroda he was permitted to stay at the previously allotted quarter with his family members at Godhra where the claimants continued to stay even after the departure of Himatram Pardeshiram in May 1973. It appears that in December 1973 the aforesaid Himatram was posted on patrolling duty at Bakrol near Godhra and he had to return to Baroda headquarters on December 25 1973 In the meanwhile after his duty hours at Bakrol ended in the early morning of December 19 1973 the workman tried to go to his residential quarter at Godhra which was lying at a short distance from his place of duty at Bakrol but while approaching his railway quarter in the Loco Shed at Godhra he had to cross a railway line and while attempting to cross over the railway line he was unfortunately crushed to death by a speeding railway engine. The original applicants present respondents claimed compensation from the employer-railway administration by filing Workmen Compensation Application No. 23 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Panchmahals at Godhra. The appellants in their written statement at Exhibit 9 contended that the deceased did not die as a result of the accident while he was on duty or in the course of his employment. That the deceased was serving at Bakrol and he had come to Godhra on a private visit. Their case was that the deceased was serving at Bakrol and his headquarter at the relevant time was Baroda. He was already transferred to Baroda in May 1973 and in December 1973 he had no business to go to Godhra after his duty hours ended in the early morning of December 19 1973 Thus the contention of the railway administration was that the deceased workman had gone to Godhra on a private visit and when he was run over by a speeding engine while approaching his residential quarter at Godhra he cannot be said to have died on account of an accident which was caused to him in the course of or arising out of his employment. The aforesaid contentions of the appellants were turned down by the learned Commissioner and a decree for Rs. 8000 came to be passed in favour of the original applicantspresent respondents with a further direction to deposit a substantial portion of the compensation amount in a nationalised bank on a long term basis. The said order of the ex-officio Commissioner has resulted in the present appeal at the instance of the railways. ( 3 ) MR. Pandit for the appellant-railways has put forward his case in a very fair manner. Mr. Pandit submitted that the deceased workman was already transferred from Godhra to Baroda months back in May 1973 as the order at Exhibit 25 shows. Thereafter his headquarters were obviously at Baroda. ( 3 ) MR. Pandit for the appellant-railways has put forward his case in a very fair manner. Mr. Pandit submitted that the deceased workman was already transferred from Godhra to Baroda months back in May 1973 as the order at Exhibit 25 shows. Thereafter his headquarters were obviously at Baroda. From Baroda he was temporarily shifted to Bakrol which was of course near Godhra but from Bakrol he had to go back to Baroda his original headquarters by December 25 1973 But in the meantime the deceased workman tried to pay a private visit to his residential premises at Godhra and while going on a private visit he was unfortunately run over by a speeding railway engine and consequently he died on account of the accident which had not arisen in the course of his employment or out of his employment. Mr. Pandit also submitted that the learned Commissioner has resorted to a lot of rhetorics and has made certain observations which were quite off the tangent and wide off the mark. Mr. J. C. Sheth the learned advocate appearing for the respondentsclaimants original applicants on the other hand has supported the final order as passed by the learned Commissioner. ( 4 ) SO far as the first submission of Mr. Pandit is concerned it must be stated that the workman concerned who was originally posted at Godhra was transferred to Baroda in May 1973 and thus his headquarters definitely changed from Godhra to Baroda. But the fact remains that he was not provided with residential quarter at Baroda by the railway authorities and he was permitted to occupy his existing residential railway quarter at Godhra. Thus for all practical purposes his official residence remained at Godhra where his family continued to occupy the said quarter. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the railway administration that they had called upon the deceased workman to vacate his residential quarter at Godhra on account of his transfer from Godhra to Baroda. The railways obviously could not do so as they had not provided any residential accommodation to the deceased at Baroda. Hence after the duty hours it was quite natural for the workman to trace his steps back to his home which was located in the railway quarters situated in the Loco Shed at Godhra. The railways obviously could not do so as they had not provided any residential accommodation to the deceased at Baroda. Hence after the duty hours it was quite natural for the workman to trace his steps back to his home which was located in the railway quarters situated in the Loco Shed at Godhra. That was his real home where he was expected to return after the completion of his official duties be they at Baroda or at Bakrol. The appellants-railways led evidence before the trial Court by examining witness Chandrasinh at Exhibit 29 to show that there was a railway overbridge at Godhra and the workman should have used that bridge instead of taking the risk of crossing the open railway line which had resulted in his unfortunate death as he was run over by a speeding railway engine. Except leading this evidence the railwayadministration had nothing more to say in the matter. Most of the facts on the record of this case are admitted ones. Mr. Pandits submission was that once the workman got his headquarters changed from Godhra to Baroda in May 1973 he had no occasion to return to his residential quarter at Godhra on the fateful day. Consequently submits Mr. Pandit the intended visit of his residential quarter at Godhra by the workman on December 19 1973 was purely a private visit and hence if he suffered any mishap during the course of such a private visit the employer cannot be blamed. It is difficult to accept this submission of Mr. Pandit. It must be stated in fairness to him that he promptly pointed out to the Court paragraph 2 of the written statement as filed by the railways before the learned Commissioner. In the said paragraph 2 it has been stated by the railways themselves that the deceased workman left Baroda by 97 Down on 18-12-73 and arrived at Bakrol and performed his night duty from 7. 00 PM to 7. 00 AM on 19-12-73 and came to Godhra on his own accord. In the said paragraph 2 it has been stated by the railways themselves that the deceased workman left Baroda by 97 Down on 18-12-73 and arrived at Bakrol and performed his night duty from 7. 00 PM to 7. 00 AM on 19-12-73 and came to Godhra on his own accord. It is thus clear that the duty hours of the deceased workman ceased by 7 AM in the early morning of December 19 1973 Immediately after his duty hours were over the deceased workman obviously had to return to his home where his wife and children were expecting him and where they were permitted to stay by the railway authorities as they could not provide any residential accommodation at Baroda. Consequently when the workman after his duty hours were over tried to return to his home situated in the Loco Shed at Godhra which is his official residence it cannot be said that the workman was on a private excursion of his own. It must be stated that he was trying to reach his home after completing his work and till he reached his home from the place of duty his course of employment was not over. As laid down by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagubai v. The General Manager Central Railway V. T. Bombay reported in 56 BLR (1954) 509 if a proximate causal connection was established between the employment and the accident the accident can be said to have arisen out of the employment of the deceased. The facts in Bhagubais case (supra) were that one Tukaram who was employed by the Central Railway at Kurla railway station lived in the railway quarters adjoining the Kurla station. The only access for Tukaram for his quarters to the Kurla railway station was through the compound of the railway quarters. On December 20 1952 Tukaram left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty at midnight and immediately thereafter he was stabbed to death by some unknown person. Tukarams widow. Bhagubai (applicant) applied to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for compensation of Rs. 3500 in respect of the death of her husband. On December 20 1952 Tukaram left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty at midnight and immediately thereafter he was stabbed to death by some unknown person. Tukarams widow. Bhagubai (applicant) applied to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for compensation of Rs. 3500 in respect of the death of her husband. The Commissioner found that Tukaram had died of injury by accident arising in the course of his employment but that he did not die of injury by accident arising out of his employment and consequently he dismissed the claim application of the widow of the deceased workman. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chagla and Dixit JJ. while allowing appeal of the widow took the view that the accident did arise in the course of his employment. In that case it was found that the deceased left his quarters a few minutes before midnight in order to join duty and immediately thereafter he was stabbed to death by some unknown person. What was disputed in that case was that the accident did not arise out of the employment of the deceased. Negativing the said contention the Bombay High Court observed that it was established in that case before them that the deceased was at a particular place that he was there because he had to be there by reason of his employment and that because he was there he met with an accident and because a proximate causal connection was established between the employment and the accident the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. In the present case also after the duty hours were over the deceased workman was bound to return to his residential quarter wherever it be and while he was trying to return to his residential quarter he was unfortunately run over by a speeding railway engine. Consequently it must be held that the deceased died on account of the accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager B. E. S. T. Undertaking Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 had to consider the question when such an accident can be said to have been caused out of and in the course of the employment of the workman. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager B. E. S. T. Undertaking Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 had to consider the question when such an accident can be said to have been caused out of and in the course of the employment of the workman. It was laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision that the question when does an employment begin and when does it cease depends upon the facts of each case. But the Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the down tool signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. 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 eaves his tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment. A contractual duty or obligation on the part of an employee to use only a particular means of transport extends the area of the field of employment to the course of the said transport. A theoretical option to take an alternative route may not detract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity or of practical compulsion. The facts of the case before Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were that one driver employed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation B. E. S. T. finished his work for the day at about 7. 45 p. m. at Jogeshwari bus depot. After leaving the bus in the depot he boarded another bus in order to go to his residence at Santa Cruz. The said bus collided with a stationary lorry parked at an awkward angle on Ghodbunder Road near Erla Bridge Andheri. As a result of the said collision the said driver was thrown out on the road and injured. He was removed to hospital for treatment where he expired. The Supreme Court held that the accident occurred to the said driver during the course of his employment and therefore his wife was entitled to compensation. As a result of the said collision the said driver was thrown out on the road and injured. He was removed to hospital for treatment where he expired. The Supreme Court held that the accident occurred to the said driver during the course of his employment and therefore his wife was entitled to compensation. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that as the free transport is provided to the bus driver in the interest of service having regard to the long distance a driver has to traverse to go to the depot from his house and vice versa the user of the said buses is a proved necessity giving rise to an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty. He is not exercising the right as a member of the public hut only as one belonging to a service. The entire Greater Bombay is the field or area of the service and every bus is an integrated part of the service. The decisions relating to accidents occurring to an employee in a factory or in premises belonging to the employer providing ingress or egress to the factory are not of much relevance to a case where an employee has to operate over a larger area in a bus which is in itself an integrated part of a fleet of buses operating in the entire area. Though the doctrine of reasonable or notional extension of employment developed in the context of specific workshops factories or harbours equally applies to such a bus service the doctrine necessarily will have to be adopted to meet its peculiar requirements. While in a case of a factory the premises of the employer which gives ingress or egress to the factory is a limited one in the case of a city transport service by analogy the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the premises. When a driver when going home from the depot or coming to the depot uses the bus any accident that happens to him is an accident in the course of his employment. In the aforesaid decision B. E. S. T. Undertaking was the employer under whose employment the concerned driver met with an accident while going home from depot. In the present case the railways are the employers. In the aforesaid decision B. E. S. T. Undertaking was the employer under whose employment the concerned driver met with an accident while going home from depot. In the present case the railways are the employers. From the place of work at Bakrol if the employee had to travel back to Godhra where in the Loco Shed his residential premises were situated and if he travelled from Bakrol to Godhra by railway for reaching his residential premises and tried to cross the railway line at Godhra for approaching his quarters it can easily be said that there is a notional extension of employment at both the entry and exit points by time and space. The course of employment covers the entire area in which the workman had to find himself while returning from his place of duty at Bakrol to his own railway quarter in Godhra Loco Shed. Therefore the railway service operating between his place of duty at Bakrol and Godhra Loco Shed can be considered to be his place of duty or employment. Hence it must be held that the accident in question arose during the course of employment of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the accident arose out of employment once it is held that it did arise in the course of the employment. If the workman was at the spot where he met his death on account of his employment which had taken him away from his home and where he had to return after finishing his work he can be said to have died on account of an accident arising out of the employment when the speeding railway engine cut his life short before he could reach his home which was lying on the other side of the open railway track. Consequently no fault can be found with the findings reached by the learned Commissioner on the facts of the present case that the accident was caused to the workman during the course of his employment and it arose out of his employment. Undeterred by the position Mr. Pandit alternatively submitted that in any case when there was a overhead railway bridge at Godhra the workman had no occasion to cross the open railway track and consequently the workman had to thank himself for his untimely death. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Undeterred by the position Mr. Pandit alternatively submitted that in any case when there was a overhead railway bridge at Godhra the workman had no occasion to cross the open railway track and consequently the workman had to thank himself for his untimely death. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Pandit can be of no real avail to the appellants-railway administration. When all the requirements of sec. 3 of the Act are satisfied the employer cannot escape his liability. In the present case it has been found that the workman had suffered personal injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Consequently the main requirements of sec. 3 (1) were satisfied. It is necessary to reproduce the sec. 3 (1) with provisos as under:" (1) 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 accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided if 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 of 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 workman;a mere look at the aforesaid provisos shows that before an employer can bring his case within any of the two provisos which carve out exceptions to sec. 3 (1) it must be shown that the injury suffered by the concerned workman has not resulted in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period not exceeding three days on his duties. The present case cannot be covered either by proviso (a) or by proviso (b) as the injury suffered by the workman has resulted in death. Consequently Mr. Pandit cannot bring to the assistance of the railways the provision of sec. The present case cannot be covered either by proviso (a) or by proviso (b) as the injury suffered by the workman has resulted in death. Consequently Mr. Pandit cannot bring to the assistance of the railways the provision of sec. 3 (1) proviso (b ). Mr. Pandits attempt was to bring the case within the proviso (b) (ii) to sec. 3 (1 ). The said attempt must prove futile for two reasons firstly because proviso (b) cannot apply as the workman concerned has died secondly because even assuming that the said proviso can be applied it can help only when it is established that there is a wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safely of workmen. It is not the case of the railway that they had framed express rule or regulation prohibiting the workmen from crossing the railway line and calling upon them to use always overhead railway bridge. In absence of such type of evidence on the part of the railways they cannot effectively seek assistance of proviso (b) (ii) to sec. 3 (1) of the Act. Thus on both these grounds the railways cannot get the advantage of the exceptional clause as employed by the proviso to sec. 3 (1 ). Consequently Mr. Pandits attempt to stick to the exceptional clauses of the proviso is of no avail-to him or to the appellant-railway administration. As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the final decision as rendered by the learned Commissioner is unexceptionable and has got to be confirmed. But Mr. Pandit was right when he submitted that while arriving at the said decision the learned Commissioner has gone off the track while he observed that the English decisions were rendered by the imperialistic Judges and they were of no assistance to the present day problems. It must be recalled at this stage that various decisions have been rendered on the interpretation of sec. 3 (1) of the Act by various High Courts and also by this Court wherein substantial assistance has been derived from English decisions. Hence the observations made by the learned Commissioner to the contrary on this aspect are all uncalled for and unsustainable. 3 (1) of the Act by various High Courts and also by this Court wherein substantial assistance has been derived from English decisions. Hence the observations made by the learned Commissioner to the contrary on this aspect are all uncalled for and unsustainable. Consequently even though I confirm the final order of the learned Commissioner it must be stated that I do not subscribe to the wide observations off the mark to which the learned Commissioner has resorted to while arriving his final decision. It must be stated that learned advocate Mr. Sheth for the respondent also fairly submitted that wide observations on the part of the learned Commissioner cannot be subscribed to. With these observations the present appeal at the instance of the railway administration has got to fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. .