Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madras, in W.C. No. 360 of 1991. The unsuccessful claimant before the Commissioner is the appellant before this Court. 2. In the claim petition, it was contended that he was a workman employed by the opposite party and on 6.9.1991 he received personal injury due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his index finger, middle finger and ring finger being subjected to crush injury. After treatment his entire left hand became functionless and thus the applicant suffered from permanent disability. On 6.9.1991 at about 2.30 P.M. the left hand of the applicant was caught inside the belt of the lathe and his fingers were crushed. Therefore, the accident was only in the course of his employment under the opposite party. The applicant was employed as a miller under the opposite party and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- including all the allowances. He was 23 years at the time of accident. The percentage of disability was 50 per cent and therefore, he was entitled to a lumpsum payment of Rs. 40,000/-. 3. In the counter filed by the Opposite Party, it was contended that on 6.9.1991, Thiru R. Shankar was working as a Lathe operator and at about 2.30 P.M. when the lathe was switched on, the applicant left his workspot carrying with him a component to be worked on the lathe and after handing over the component to Shankar, the applicant inserted his hand into the ‘V’ belt of the lathe machine and as a result of his own imprudent act he sustained injuries. The applicant also admitted the fact that he had ins erted his hand into the machine on his own volition by his letter dated 6.9.1991. The age of the applicant was 29 years and not 23 years as claimed by the applicant. However, on a proper calculation of the nature of the injury sustained by the applicant, the claimant was entitled to only a sum of Rs. 7,500/- on 5.10.1991 as compensation for the injury sustained by him. He has also taken a loan of Rs. 2,540/- towards construction of his house and he did not report for duty after the accident. 4. 7,500/- on 5.10.1991 as compensation for the injury sustained by him. He has also taken a loan of Rs. 2,540/- towards construction of his house and he did not report for duty after the accident. 4. On a consideration of the said contentions and the evidence, the Commissioner held that the negligence of the applicant had contributed to the accident and therefore, the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the applicant. On the basis of the said finding, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings rendered by the Commissioner in the context of the circumstances under which the accident occurred was directly opposed to the stand taken by the management itself in their counter. The fact that the applicant had taken a component to be worked on a lathe was admitted in the counter itself, but in contrast the Commissioner had recorded a finding that there was no evidence to show that the applicant went to the lathe machine only in order to deliver finished materials. It is further submitted that the only basis on which the Commissioner proceeded is the evidence of R.W.1, accountant of the opposite party. The accountant had absolutely no reason to be present at the time of the accident and he was only a chance witness on whom much reliance cannot also be placed. It is further stated that admittedly R.W.1 was very closely related to the Opposite party and hence no reliance can be placed on his evidence. 6. Mr. Dwarakanathan, learned counsel for the respondent/management however, contends that the circumstances under which the accident took place would disclose that the applicant was not assigned with the duties which he was discharging as a result of which he sustained injuries. Though the fact that he was employed as a Miller is not disputed, it is not part of his duty to attend the lathe work. It was not part of his duties. Further, the conduct of the applicant placing his hand on the belt of the lathe machine was totally uncalled for and therefore, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent was also relied on the following judgments in support of his contention. 7. It was not part of his duties. Further, the conduct of the applicant placing his hand on the belt of the lathe machine was totally uncalled for and therefore, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent was also relied on the following judgments in support of his contention. 7. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak 83 L.W. 40 S.N. = (1970 Lab I.C. 1413) in which the Supreme Court has held that the employers liability for compensation would arise only if there was a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident had occurred on account of the risk which was incidental and in the course of his employment, the claimant may succeed, but not when the workman exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent conduct. 8. In Bai Shakri v. New Manekchowk Mills Co., Ltd. (1961 L.L.J. 585), it was held by the Gujarat High Court that where there was no evidence to show that the accident was in the course of the employment of the workman or accelerated by the nature of his duties, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jayanthilal Dhanji & Co. Oil Mills v. E.S.I. Corpn. (1961 (II) L.L.J. 542). that was a case in which the workman was employed in an oil mill to feed the crushing machine which was worked by a belt mounted on a pulley fixed in a power-driver shaft. In order to prevent the machine from getting damaged, the workman tried to shift the belt off the moving pulley by giving a kick to the belt. While doing so, his leg was caught between the pulley and the belt and he was pulled up to a height of six feet from where he fell down and died instantaneously. It was contended on behalf of the employer/appellant that the claim was not sustainable since the workman had exposed himself to a peril which was on account of his own action, unconnected with his employment. 10. The High Court negatived the said contention and held that there was intimate and causal connection between the accident, and his duties which resulted in the death of the workman. 10. The High Court negatived the said contention and held that there was intimate and causal connection between the accident, and his duties which resulted in the death of the workman. Reliance is placed on this judgment by the learned counsel for the respondent only to emphasis the fact that unless and otherwise, the accident was directly referable to the duties of the worker, no claim can be sustained. 11. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in 1991 (I) C.L.R. 957 ( Natwarsih A. Chauhan v. Niranjanbhai K. Shah ). It was held that in order to fix the liability on the employer it should be possible to assume at least notional extension of employment even though the aggrieved person may not have suffered injury during actual working hours. 12. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. While considering as to whether it was part of the duty of the applicant to have gone anywhere near the lathe or not, the facts pleaded in the counter of the management itself would show that the applicant was required to take a particular component to be worked on the lathe. It is true that the applicant was employed only as a Miller. It may not be strictly within the four corners of his assigned duties to take a component to the lathe. But the management in the counter stated that the applicant carried with him a component to be worked on the lathe and handed over the component to Thiru. Shankar, lathe operator. It follows that the applicant was only discharging his duties towards the management/establishment. It is not stated that the applicant was doing anything which was forbidden to be done by him. 13. It is necessary to view such matters in a practical manner. Various employees while they discharge their work in a factory especially in a small scale industry or even in a heavy industry, are required to perform incidental jobs or to assist or to lend a helping hand to a co-employee occasionally. Such occasions cannot be avoided. The management usually does not and cannot frown on such situations which are taken for granted in the usual course, the management at the same time cannot attempt to quote or to define duties in an air-tight and compartmentalized manner only when it comes to payment of compensation. Such occasions cannot be avoided. The management usually does not and cannot frown on such situations which are taken for granted in the usual course, the management at the same time cannot attempt to quote or to define duties in an air-tight and compartmentalized manner only when it comes to payment of compensation. It is true that there are several instances whereby an employee may be properly accused of having indulged in an adventure totally unconnected with his normal duties, or a work which depends on technical expertise which he is not possessed with or an indiscreet or imprudent action unconnected with his duties. For instance, an Office Assistant (Peon) whose job is only to do errand work may take the driving seat of the office vehicle resulting in an accident. An Office Clerk in the Electricity Board who is assigned with administrative work may assume the role of an Electrical foreman and tamper with electrical connections and get electrocuted. Many such instances could be stated. There may also be many interconnected jobs or the area of operation may be common. For instance, an automobile electrician and a car mechanic. Therefore, each case has to be decided on the particular facts and circumstances. In the present case, the job of a Miller (claimant) cannot be totally dissociated with the lathe-work and the duty which was admittedly performed by him was only handing over a component to the lathe-operator, which was also received by the lathe operator. 14. From the admitted facts, it can be inferred that the applicant was discharging his duties as expected by the management and that the applicant was required to hand over the component to the lathe operator, probably due to the absence of some other person assigned with that job. Therefore, as long as the management has not come out with a pleading that the applicant was prohibited from handing over the component to the lathe operator and the very fact that he was required to do so and the lathe operator had also accepted the component from the applicant would show that he was only discharging his normal duties to his employer. The lathe operator would have been the best witness but the management had not examined him. 15. The lathe operator would have been the best witness but the management had not examined him. 15. On this issue as pointed by learned counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner had chosen to record a finding which is totally opposed to the pleading of the management itself. While it is admitted that the accident took place while the applicant handed over the component to the lathe operator, the Commissioner had chosen to record a finding that the contention of the applicant that he went to the lathe machine to deliver finished materials, cannot be accepted as true. The said finding has therefore, been rendered without being alive to the very pleadings by both sides. On another issue also, the management had contradicted itself, which has not been duly considered by the Commissioner. In the counter, it has been stated as though the applicant had voluntarily inserted his hand into the ‘V’ belt and had sustained injuries. But in the evidence of R.W.1, the contention is that the applicant was chatting with another worker and had absent-mindedly got his hand crushed by the lathe machine. It is very o bvious that the witness had only tried to improvise the stand of the management in contrast with the statement in the counter affidavit. While in the counter, the management had fairly admitted that the applicant went near the lathe only to hand over the component to the lathe operator, the witness had chosen to say as though the applicant was chatting with some other worker and had absent-mindedly got his hand crushed by the lathe machine. Therefore, the Commissioner ought to have ignored the evidence of R.W.1. 16. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant had no right to claim any compensation if his conduct had not resulted in any injury in connection with his duties, I have already held that the circumstances establish that the applicant was only discharging his duties as expected by the management. He has not performed any duty which was prohibited. He has not performed any duty which was prohibited. In fact, in one of the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the respondents himself namely that of the Gujarat High Court reported in 1991 I C.L.R., 957, cited supra, it was held that it was not necessary to show that the injury in question occurred or caused only during the working hours or while performing his actual duties. If a workman sustained injury even during interval period either in the factory or nearby place while taking a cup of tea or fetching water for drinking or for any other reason for satisfying his personal requirement or instincts and it was held on the facts of that case that the claimant was only discharging normal pursuits of life which are required to be done in the course of his duty hours. In the present case, it is not even the case of the worker sustaining injury during interval hours. He was admittedly handing over a component to the lathe operator. It is also pertinent to note that the management had not chosen to examine the lathe operator who would have been the appropriate witness, as regards the actual circumstances under which the accident took place. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies on a letter said to have been given by the worker himself admitting that he had placed his hands absent mindedly on the ‘V’ belt. The said letter has been marked in evidence and it shows that on the same day, he has given the letter to the effect that he had placed his left hand on the lathe absent mindedly and that he was writing the letter being fully conscious. It is needless to point out that apparently the worker has been made to give such a letter. There was absolutely no provocation or necessity for the injured person whose left hand was crushed and undergoing treatment to give a letter voluntarily on the same day, unmindful of the pain and suffering which he should have suffered. The letter should have been taken to avoid a Police case. Therefore, no importance can be attached to such a letter taken from the worker. 18. The letter should have been taken to avoid a Police case. Therefore, no importance can be attached to such a letter taken from the worker. 18. Therefore, I am unable to sustain the findings of the Commissioner which are not only based on no evidence, but also vitiated by recording findings ignoring the positive pleadings by the management itself as regards the circumstances under which the accident took place. 19. In the result, the finding of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, considering that the Commissioner did not go into the assessment of the compensation payable to the claimant on the basis of his age and last drawn salary, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner for consideration of the quantum of compensation payable to the defendant. Considering that the appeal proceedings relate to the year 1991, the Commissioner is directed to dispose of the application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.