JUDGMENT 1. Abdul Wahid was employed as Master Crafts Man in South Eastern Railway and was working under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer at Electric Loco Shed, Tatanagar. 2. On 28.3.1990, his duty period was from 7 am. to 4.30 p.m. During lunch break between 11 am. to 12.30 p.m. he had gone to his residence and while coming back to his duty at 12.30 p.m.. on the way at railway level crossing, he was struck down by an electric loco and sustained injuries. 3. On his application made under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. 1923. Presiding Officer. Labour Court. Jamshedpur, assessed a lumpsum amount of Rs. 45,000/- payable to him as compensation under the Act with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till payment. 4. General Manager. South Eastern Railway, has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act. challenging the aforesaid judgment and award. 5. Mr. S. Bose. Counsel for appellants, submitted that in view of the fact that respondent sustained injuries outside the working place, while he was on way from his residence to the place of working, after taking lunch, the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation under the Act. 6. In the present case, admittedly respondent sustained injury on the Railway level crossing, which was away from his place of working. So at any rate it cannot be said that accident had taken place in course of his employment. The accident happened in course of his journey from his residence to the place of his working, while coming back to his duty after lunch. 7. Requirement of the Act in respect of claim of compensation depends on an accident which had its origin in the employment. When a workman Is on a public road or a public place or a public transport, he is there in the capacity of public and is not there in course of his employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. 8. For the purpose of extracting provisions of the Act and benefits provided thereunder to a workman, it is necessary that the accident must have a casual connection with employment and workman must suffer injury in course of employment. 9. The present accident had no casual connection with the work. 8. For the purpose of extracting provisions of the Act and benefits provided thereunder to a workman, it is necessary that the accident must have a casual connection with employment and workman must suffer injury in course of employment. 9. The present accident had no casual connection with the work. The respondent was working in the electric loco-shed of South Eastern Railway at Tatanagar but suffered injury on the way and not in course of his employment. 10. In our opinion, the respondent was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Act. 11. In the result, this Appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and award stand set aside and WCA Case No. 6 of 1991 is dismissed. A sum of Rs. 61,444/- deposited by the appellant as required under proviso to Section 30 of the Act by Challan No. J- 01 dated 1.4.1997 is permitted to be withdrawn by him on proper verification and in accordance with law. No costs.