ORDER 1. Respondents husband Devanand Singh was employed as general Mazdoor in Nichitpur Open Cast Project of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 2. On 10.3.1997, he performed his duty in the first shift from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. and thereafter overtime duty till about 6.45 P.M. After his overtime work was over, he returned from his place of duty on his bicycle TO hiS residence at Joghta Fire Project. On the way he was stopped by 6-7 unknown persons and all of a sudden one of them fired at him by pistol from close range which hit his right side abdomen and he succumbed to the injuries sustained. 3. His wife filed W.C. Case No. 12 of 1998 under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) demanding a sum of Rs. 2,01,660/- to be paid as compensation. 4. The employer contested the case and denied that Devanand Singh met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The occurrence did not take place in colliery premises rather on road. A proceeding under the Act was not maintainable and his widow was not entitled to get any compensation under the Act. 5. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad by impugned order directed the employer-appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,03,850/- as compensation under the Act to the respondent with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.4.1997 till payment. 6. It was observed in the said order that Devanand Singh died in course of his employment, and, therefore, his widow was entitled to get compensation under the Act. 7. Reference was made to Ext. A-1, which was a memorandum of bipartite discussion held on 11.3.1997 between representatives of Labour Union as well as Management of the Colliery, wherein it was decided to provide employment to widow of deceased Devanand Singh and to forward compensation as per Workmens Compensation Act to the Headquarters for payment giving factual fact of the case. Besides the above, all legal dues are paid at the earliest. It was also decided that Unions agitation would be over with the assurance that no victimisation would be made for stoppage of work and worker should compensate loss of production by doing extra efforts. 8. The employer has challenged the said order/award in the instant appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Act. 9. It was also decided that Unions agitation would be over with the assurance that no victimisation would be made for stoppage of work and worker should compensate loss of production by doing extra efforts. 8. The employer has challenged the said order/award in the instant appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that Devanand Singh was murdered on the way to his residence while returning from the place of his duty after performing his work. 10. In Regina v. National Insurance Commissioner, Ex-parte, Michael, 1977 (1) Weekly Law Reports 109, the court of appeal in England had to construe a phrase "caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" and Lord Denning in the said judgment observed "Take a case where a man is going to or from his place of work on his bi-cycle, or in his own car. He might be said to be doing something "reasonably incidental" to his employment. But if he has an accident on the way, it is well settled that it does not "arise out of and in the course of his employment". 11. There is precisely the case before us. Here also, we have a case of a person going from his place of work to his home. But he suffers injury in an accident on the way, when some unknown miscreants fired at him from pistol. It cannot be said that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. 12. In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company v. Bai Valu Raja, AIR 1958 SC 881 , it was observed : "As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded." 13. It is well settled that when a workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public transport, he is there as any other member of the 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. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his place of work and is on his way to his home. 14. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his place of work and is on his way to his home. 14. There must be proximate or at least fundamental connection between the accident and the employment which is absent in the instant case. Unless injury is caused while doing something which was incidental to the nature of work for which workman was employed, no compensation is payable under the Act. 15. In order to justify claim of compensation under the Act, it is to be proved by the claimant that there was an accident, the accident had a causal connection with the employment, and the accident must have been suffered in course of employment. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that claimant herein was unable to prove that the accident had any causal connection with the work, her deceased husband was doing in the colliery and. in any event it was not suffered in the course of employment. 16. In our opinion, therefore, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, was in error in supposing that the deceased workman in this case on the basis of notional extension theory of place of work died in course of his employment. Settlement arrived at the bipartite discussion, Exhibit A-1 was not relevant so far as entitlement of claimant to receive compensation under the Act was concerned. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, was not required to be influenced by the said settlement in deciding the instant proceeding under the Act in accordance with law. 17. We are of the view that in the facts of this case it cannot be said that murder of the workman away from the colliery while he was on his way to home was an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The causal connection between the death and employment had not been established in the present case, 18. The appeal therefore succeeds. The order/award dated 20.4.2001 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad is set aside and W.C. Case No. 12 of 1998 stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.