JUDGMENT : T.D. Sugla, J. 1. The Appellant-original applicant is the mother of the deceased Dharmalingam who had been in the employment of the Respondent Central Railways, Bombay V.T. as Assistant Points man .The said Dharmalingam received injury by an accident on 4th July, 1977 and died in the hospital on the next day. The applicant claimed Rs. 19,200/- as a lump sum compensation on the ground that the deceased Dharmalingam died by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Respondent Railways. In support the applicant examined herself and four other witnesses. The Respondent Railways did not examine any witness and satisfied itself by producing some documents. The applicant naturally did not have personal knowledge about the details of the accident. 2. The Compensation Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that the deceased Dharma-lingam's duty was over on 4th July, 1977 at 4.10 p.m., i.e., on the fateful day and the accident took place at about 4.55 p.m. when he was probably going back from his place of duty to his residence at Dharavi. It was upto him to travel by bus or by train. Therefore, it was not possible to accept that the accident took place out of and in the course of his employment with the Respondent Railways. 3. The appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on 20th February ,1988 when none had appeared on behalf of the Respondent Railways. Instead of hearing the appeal that day, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was asked to serve notice on the Respondent Railways as well as the Central Government Pleaders' Office and the appeal was adjourned to this day, i.e., 2nd March, 1988 for hearing. The notices were served on 29th February, 1988 itself. Even then none had appeared when the hearing started. After the hearing was over and when the court had started dictating the judgment, Mr. Patil, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Railways, appeared to say that he had just received the brief and was not in a position to make any submissions on behalf of the Respondent Railways. 4. We were taken through the impugned order and the evidence on record by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the absence of any assistance from the Respondent Railways. 4. We were taken through the impugned order and the evidence on record by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the absence of any assistance from the Respondent Railways. It is an admitted position that the deceased Dharmalingam was on duty upto 4.10 p.m. on the fateful day whereafter he went to the office to receive his wages which he received at 4.30 p.m. There is evidence of his uncle by the name Chellian Muttu who used to stay with the deceased to the effect that the deceased had a free railway pass. This evidence was not controverted. In the circumstances it has to be assumed that the deceased had a free railway pass. There also does not appear to be any dispute about the fact that he was coming back from his place of duty after receiving wages to the place of his residence. From the aforesaid two facts the inference is inevitable that he was traveling by a local train using free railway pass given to him by the Respondent Railways for the purpose. The short question, therefore, is whether a railway employee meets with an accident while traveling back from the place of his duty to his residence by a local train using free railway pass given to him by his employer, the Railways, for the purpose, the accident takes place or is to be treated to have taken place arising out of and during the course of his employment within the meaning of Section 3. Mr. D.L. Patil, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, referred to and relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Agnes 1958 ACJ 473 (SC). The facts in that case were that the workman was an employee of B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay. On the date of the accident he was traveling by a B.E.S.T. bus from the bus depot after his duty hours to the place of his residence. The bus collided with a lorry and as a result of the accident the workman sustained injuries and died. It was held that the accident occurred out of and in the course of the employment. On the uncontroversial facts of this case we find that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision (supra) is squarely applicable. The bus collided with a lorry and as a result of the accident the workman sustained injuries and died. It was held that the accident occurred out of and in the course of the employment. On the uncontroversial facts of this case we find that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision (supra) is squarely applicable. Accordingly, we accept the applicant's claim that the deceased Dharmalingam died in accident which occurred during the course and arising out of his employment with the Respondent Railways and hold that the claim filed by the applicant is maintainable. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The Respondent is directed to pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 19,200/- being the amount of compensation within a month hereof. Having regard to the fact that the death took place on 5th July, 1977 and the compensation is being awarded now in the year 1988, we further direct that the Respondent Railways will be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent together with penalty at 50 per cent of the amount of compensation if the amount of compensation is not paid within a month as directed. No order as to costs.