JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants/applicants under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth the Act) against the Award dated December 30, 1997 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Shahdol (henceforth the Commissioner) in Case No. 31 of 1996, whereby the claim of the appellants for compensation regarding the death of Abdul Rashid has been dismissed. 2. The facts of this case are that the appellants filed Case No. 31 of 1996 before the Commissioner, claiming that Abdul Rashid died on June 9, 1995 during the course of his employment. It was claimed that Abdul Rashid was employed with the respondents as Switchman and he was posted at Bandhwara Railway Station near Shahdol Railway Station. His duty hours were from 8.30 P.M. of June 8, 1995 to 8.00 P.M. of June 9, 1995. He died at about 7.00 A.M. on June 9, 1995. It was claimed that while working in the cabin at Bandhwara Abdul Rashid was required to answer the call of nature in the morning and for this purpose, he went to a place at about 200 meters away from the cabin where the river flowed nearby. It appears that he died on account of accidental fall in the river when he went to answer the call of nature. His dead body was found in the river. Accordingly, a claim for compensation of Rs. 73,668/- and interest thereon was filed by the appellants who are the dependents of late Abdul Rashid. 3. The respondent did not deny the duty hours of Abdul Rashid as alleged by the appellants. It was also not denied that Abdul Rashid accidentally fell down in the river and died on account of that accident. However, it was claimed by the respondents that the accident did not arise during the course of his employment. It was further stated that nor did it arise out of the employment. 4. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the evidence on record showed that Abdul Rashid went to answer the call of nature at about 7.00 A.M. on June 9, 1995. It was also held that he died due to accidental fall into the river during that period. 4. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the evidence on record showed that Abdul Rashid went to answer the call of nature at about 7.00 A.M. on June 9, 1995. It was also held that he died due to accidental fall into the river during that period. However, the Commissioner has drawn the fine distinction in coming to the conclusion that it was not proved that in usual course as a daily routine, Abdul Rashid used to go to the river to answer the call of nature and the Commissioner was of the view that the burden of proof was on the appellants to prove that this was the usual practice among the employees of the railways who were placed on duty in the said cabin. Non-examination of the employees of the railways was held to be a flaw in the evidence led by the appellant and, therefore, it was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and on this basis the learned Commissioner has declined to grant compensation to the appellants. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex. D-1 is the report of the enquiry which was proved by the respondents themselves, and for this purpose, the respondents had examined their own witness, namely Jopurti, N.A.W. 2, who was the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned counsel for the appellants a perusal of Ex. 0-1 would reveal that it was usual for the persons posted at cabin to go to answer the call of nature in the manner Abdul Rashid had done. The conclusion that has been marked as C to C is to the effect that looking to the entire circumstances of the case and all the witnesses, and the relevant documents, the officer constituted the joint enquiry, was of the view that the accident occurred out of the employment and during the course of employment; and the railways are liable to pay the compensation. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is a sheet-anchor of his argument. It was argued that the joint enquiry held by the railways itself says that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner should not have ignored this aspect of the report for coming to a different conclusion. 6. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is a sheet-anchor of his argument. It was argued that the joint enquiry held by the railways itself says that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner should not have ignored this aspect of the report for coming to a different conclusion. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand says that the appellants have not led any evidence to show that this accident occurred out of employment. It was not even proved that Abdul Rashid went to answer the call of nature because A.W. 1 Asgari Begum was not personally present at the spot. Moreover, Abdul Rashid had not taken any permission from the Station Master and, therefore, the accident could not be said to be during the course of or out of employment. 7. The death of Abdul Rashid is not in dispute and therefore, the first question is whether he died during the course of employment. Now, looking to the fact that the death of Abdul Rashid occurred at about 7.00 P.M. on June 9, 1995 and that he was on duty in the cabin as a Switchman, it can easily be inferred that he died during the course of employment. He has not left the cabin and he was not relieved by any person. 8. Therefore, the next question is whether the death of Abdul Rashid could be said to be out of employment. This question is a vexed question. There is evidence on record to the effect that the Switchman at cabin had no facility of latrine to answer the call of nature. Looking to the fact that he was required to attend the cabin between 8.00 P.M. of June 8, 1995 to 8.00 A.M. of June 9, 1995 it was natural that any person who is in the cabin was likely to feel the call of nature. This matter would be of utmost urgency to any person who is placed in the same situation. The Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these facts of life. This matter would be of utmost urgency to any person who is placed in the same situation. The Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these facts of life. It appears to have been accepted by the Commissioner that lack of this facility requires the employees to go out to the way for easing themselves but the learned Commissioner has said that going to the river for easing was not proved to be the common practice on the part of the employees of the railways as well as Abdul Rashid and therefore, the inference has to be drawn that the appellants have failed to prove their case. In the opinion of this Court, the result of the enquiry Ex. D-1 shows that there was such practice and that has been proved by N.A.W. 2 Jepurti. It is, however, urged that Abdul Rashid did not take any permission from one P.O. Naik, who was the Assistant Station Master. The evidence of this witness who has been examined as N.A.W. 3 is to the effect that at about 6.20 A.M. on June 9, 1995 he made a telephone to the cabin and found that Abdul Rashid was not there and there was no answer to his call. Thereafter, he sent A.K. Vishwas for making an enquiry and at that time Abdul Rashid was found to be absent from the spot. Thereafter, A.K. Vishwas was directed to find Abdul Rashid near the river where his body was found. In cross-examination this witness admitted that mere was no facility of latrine in the cabin and the workmen in the cabin usually go to answer the call of nature in the morning out of cabin. A. W. 2 Rafique Deen has stated in his evidence that P.O. Naik, the Station Master had told him specifically that Abdul Rashid had taken permission for going to latrine. 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it was usual for the men attending the cabin at Bandhwara, to answer the call of nature for which they required to go out of cabin as there was no facility of latrine provided to cabin-man in the cabin itself. Therefore, there must have been implied permission for such purpose and mere is no reason to hold that Abdul Rashid would not have sought permission if it was necessary every day, each time. Therefore, there must have been implied permission for such purpose and mere is no reason to hold that Abdul Rashid would not have sought permission if it was necessary every day, each time. The duties of the switchman being what they are, it stands to reason that Abdul Rashid would not leave the cabin when the train is likely to cross the path. He would go out of the cabin only when the train may not be near about because this inference is being drawn by the Court on the fact mat there was usual practice to go out of cabin to answer the call of nature and it was not Abdul Rashid alone who went to answer the call of nature and whosoever was employed was required to go to answer the call of nature. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.O. Nair, N.A.W. 3 cannot be accepted that Abdul Rashid went away leaving the cabin without informing him. The nature of job would not permit such a course. All that was necessary was to inform the Assistant Station Master that no train is likely to come at the relevant time and he was going to ease himself. The telephone connection with the Station Master would facilitate such a course. 10. The question is even if Abdul Rashid had not taken permission and had gone to answer the call of nature, is it an accident which had arisen out of employment. The test that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997-I-LLJ-34 (SC) containing similar facts to that of this case, is that the accident should have its origin in the employment. Now, the evidence on record establishes that Abdul Rashid was posted to the cabin and also there was no facility provided by the Railways for answering the call of nature. Therefore, Abdul Rashid, by the force of circumstances was required to go out to answer the call of nature which was inevitable as a matter of daily routine and if such a call of nature was to be answered during the course of employment could it be said that there is no causal connection with the employment. This Court is of the view that there is causal connection. This Court is of the view that there is causal connection. If the deceased Abdul Rashid was not posted in the cabin he would not have gone to answer the call of nature out of the cabin. Therefore, there was a causal connection of the act of Abdul Rashid by going out of cabin for the purpose stated above, with the employment. 11. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was not necessary for Abdul Rashid to go near the river to answer the call of nature. He had himself chosen to go to the river and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident arose out of employment. The Court is not impressed by this argument. Looking to the common course of events it is quite common that people go to answer the call of nature at the place where water is available to them. This act is done by the people also due to sense of cleanliness in them and, therefore, no fault could be found if Abdul Rashid had chosen to go to answer the call of nature near the river where lot of water was available to him for washing himself and the excreta. Therefore, the act of falling in river was an accident. It was never expected by Abdul Rashid that he would be drowned in the river by going to answer the call of nature. Therefore, the question of happening of an event cannot be considered for the purpose of holding that this accident was not out of employment. The simple fact that there was a causal connection of the accident with the employment is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellants are found to be entitled to Rs. 73,668/- (Rupees seventy three thousand six hundred sixty eight). This amount of compensation has been calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by the deceased Abdul Rashid, which according to the documents on record, was Rs. 1260/-. In this connection, both the counsel too agreed that on this basis the compensation was rightly calculated by the appellants in their application. This amount of compensation has been calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by the deceased Abdul Rashid, which according to the documents on record, was Rs. 1260/-. In this connection, both the counsel too agreed that on this basis the compensation was rightly calculated by the appellants in their application. It also appears that this amount of compensation calculated by the appellants in their application has not been disputed by the respondents in so many words and it has been simply replied by them that the appellants are not entitled to compensation. 13. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this appeal is hereby allowed. The appellants are granted compensation to the extent of the amount as indicated above in paragraph 12 of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.