JUDGMENT - DHANUKA D.R., J.:—This appeal is preferred by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation against order dated 3rd July, 1979 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay in Application No. 50 of 1978. By the impugned order, the Employees' Insurance Court held that the injury sustained by the deceased injured person was an “employment injury” and the dependents of the deceased were entitled to receive the dependents' benefits. 2. It is unfortunate that an urgent matter of this nature has remained pending in this Court for a period of 15 years. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, is directed to place all appeals arising from applications under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for final hearing on Board within 10 days from today. 3. One Robert Sabastian Cutinho was working as a boiler attendant in Sulphur Refinery Pvt. Ltd. The said workman was duly covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and was an insured person. On 17th April, 1976, Robert Sabastian Cutinho met with an accident as indicated below. The said Mr. Robert Cutinho is hereinafter referred to as the deceased. On the day of the accident, during the lunch break, the deceased person had left the premises of the factory and went to his residence which was just behind R.K Studio for taking lunch. After taking lunch on his way back to the factory while the deceased was on Sion-Trombay Road, the deceased was knocked down by a vehicle bearing No. MRS 1600. The deceased received serious injuries. The deceased expired on 6th May, 1976. Smt. Mary Cutinho widow of the deceased, Miss Janifar Cutinho and Hasler Stephon Cutinho, children of the deceased made the above referred Application No. 50 of 1978 in the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay for determination of the question as to whether the Corporation should pay dependants' benefit to them or not. The Employees' Insurance Court granted the said application. Being aggrieved by order dated 3rd July, 1979 passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal. 4. Section 46(1)(d) of the Act (Act No. 34 of 1978) provides that the Corporation shall be liable to pay compensation to the dependants of an injured person who dies as a result of an employment injury. The applicants before the trial Court were undoubtedly the dependants of the deceased. 4. Section 46(1)(d) of the Act (Act No. 34 of 1978) provides that the Corporation shall be liable to pay compensation to the dependants of an injured person who dies as a result of an employment injury. The applicants before the trial Court were undoubtedly the dependants of the deceased. The applicant No.1 was the widow of the deceased. The applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were the minor children of the deceased. The expression “employment injury” has been defined by section 2(8) of the Act as under: “(8) “employment injury” means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India;” 5. By letter dated 7th June, 1976 (Exhibit C- 7) Sulphur Refinery Pvt. Ltd. the employer of the deceased, informed the appellants that the deceased had met with an accident during the lunch hour on 17th April, 1976 and the deceased had ultimately died in Sion Hospital on 6th May, 1976 as a result of the said accident. In the said letter, (Exhibit C- 7) described by the trial Court as the accident report, the employer refers to the practice followed by the factory workmen of taking lunch during lunch hours. Columns 5 and 6 of the accident report read as under : “5. Usual lunch hour of the Between 12-00 noon and 2-00 workman p.m. as the lunch hour is taken by rotation being continuous process job. 6. Whether during lunch Whosoever stays in the vicinity hour the workman takes of the factory, go out and at the factory or at take their food at home. Some outside. time the workmen also go out to take food in the nearby res- taurant. While some workmen take their food in the factory from their own tiffin. The de- ceased I.P. used to take his lunch at home during lunch hour.” 6. The Employees' Insurance Court reached the conclusion that having regard to the proximity of place, proximity of time, permitted lunch break and usual practice of the workmen to go home for lunch, it shall have to be held that the deceased workman received injury as a result of an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. 7. The Employees' Insurance Court reached the conclusion that having regard to the proximity of place, proximity of time, permitted lunch break and usual practice of the workmen to go home for lunch, it shall have to be held that the deceased workman received injury as a result of an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has very fairly invited attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of (P.E. Davis and Co. v. Kesto Routh)1, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 129. In para 11 of the said judgment, A.K. Mukherjea, J., speaking for the Bench of the High Court of Calcutta specifically referred to the case of (Cook v. Gateshed Corporation)2, 1944(37) B.W.C.C. 106. In this case, the workmen during their recess of 20 minutes for midday meal went away from his place of work into a lorry to have his meal in a place with better facilities and came across an accident. It was held that there was no cessation of employment and the workman was entitled to compensation for the injuries he had received. In para 11 of the said judgment, Mukherjea, J., further observed that the midday meals have been considered incidental to employment in various other cases also. Having regard to the practice followed by the workmen for going to their residence particularly when the place of residence was nearby the factory, it must be held that the trial Court was right in reaching the conclusion that the deceased had suffered injury as a result of an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. I am in respectful, agreement with the ratio of the judgment of High Court of Calcutta in the above referred case as well as the ratio of the English case Cook v. Gateshed Corporation referred to hereinabove. The Employees' Insurance Court was clearly right in reaching its conclusion to the effect that the applicants were entitled to receive compensation from the Corporation as the dependents of the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased had died as a result of the “employment injury”. 8. In the result, the appeal fails. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. 8. In the result, the appeal fails. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. The appellant is directed to compute the amount of compensation payable to the respondents who were undoubtedly the dependents of the deceased at the relevant time and make the necessary payment to them within one month from today. 10. Issue of certified copy expedited. The Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the respondents expeditiously as the respondents are victims of the unfortunate accident. Appeal dismissed. ----