JUDGMENT PER S. PALANIVELU, J. The appeal is directed against the order passed in W.C. No. 68/2003 dated April 23, 2004 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Coimbatore. The following are the averments found in the claim petition : One Thulasimani is the daughter of the claimants. She was employed as a Worker under the opposite party for the past two years. On January 25, 2003, she went to the respondent Mills to attend night shift and met with an accident on January 27, 2003 early morning in the generator room in a suspicious manner. The accident arose in the course of and out of employment. She sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Subsequently, she was taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for taking treatment. However, she died on January 27, 2003 at about 12.00 noon in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The Annur Police registered a case under Section 287 read with 304(A) IPC in Crime No. 18/2003. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of accident and was drawing a monthly wages of Rs. 4,500/-. Hence a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is prayed for as compensation. In the counter filed by the opposite party, it is alleged as follows : (i) The accident did not occur either during the course or out of employment. She was only engaged as casual employee in the winding department and she was being paid wages Rs. 45/- per day. On January 26, 2003, she reported for duty in the half night shift i.e. 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 mid night. After the completion of the shift at 12 mid night, she slept in the rest room allotted for workmen workers within the premises of the mills. (ii) On January 27, 2003 at about 6.15 a.m. she entered into the generator room to dry her half saree in the fan. During the course of drying her half saree, it was pulled into the generator and in that process, she raised alarm end co-workers trooped there and switched off the generator. In spite of the said fact, she succumbed to injuries. (iii) The work place of the deceased, is 200 feet away from the generator room. The opposite party has put up a board in front of the generator room, as well as inside, the room that no one should enter the room except the generator operator. In spite of the said fact, she succumbed to injuries. (iii) The work place of the deceased, is 200 feet away from the generator room. The opposite party has put up a board in front of the generator room, as well as inside, the room that no one should enter the room except the generator operator. The deceased after washing should have left the mills instead she violating the specific instructions entered the room and thereby invited the accident. Therefore, the opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation. The age and wages particulars are denied. She was paid only Rs. 45/- per day whenever she came for work. It is not true that her salary was Rs. 4,500/- per month. Hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The authority below, after considering the materials available before him reached the conclusion that the deceased died after the accident, which took place in the course of and out of employment under the opposite party and awarded the compensation to the claimants adopting the following formula : (i) Wages : Rs. 4,000/-; (ii) Age : 19; (iii) Factor : 225.22. Compensation : 50/100 x 4000 x 225.22 = Rs. 4,50,440/-. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court : "(i) whether the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore was justified in awarding compensation in spite of the fact that the accident was not out of and in the course of employment ? (ii) Whether the authority under W.C. Act was right in coming to the conclusion that the accident had taken place at the place of work when admittedly the accident took place in the generator room whereas the place of work of the deceased was in the cone winding department ?" It is admitted that the deceased was under employment with the appellant at the time of accident. The appellant disputes the timings and shift as stated by the claimants. The appellant disputes the timings and shift as stated by the claimants. It is the version in the claim statement as well as in the oral evidence of P.W. 1, father of the deceased that her shift was between 6.00 p.m. on the previous day until 6 a.m. on the succeeding day, while it is pleaded by the appellant that her shift was between 4.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. The authority below, after discussing the points with reference to the timings of shift, has observed that in order to show that the shift time was between 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. midnight, the employer has not produced any records and in the absence of which, it has to be held that the shift time was during 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. on the next day. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said finding which is an end-product of adverse inference. Further, it can also be stated that the women employees used to overstay in the rest room of the mills after midnight and then return to their homes in the morning. Hence, it may also be considered that before she left the work place at about 6 a.m. she met with an accident and hence unhesitatingly it could be decided that the accident took place during the course of employment. The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Silambanan appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimants have miserably failed to establish any causal connection between the employment, and the accident, that the accident cannot be stated to have taken place within the duty tine; that in spite of specific instructions by the employer by wilful disobedience, the deceased entered into the generator room and invited trouble and that under Section 3(1)(b) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the employee is not at all liable to compensate the employee while he/she violates the statutory provisions. It is advantageous to extract Section 3 of workman Compensation Act, which reads as follows : "5. Employer's liability for compensation. It is advantageous to extract Section 3 of workman Compensation Act, which reads as follows : "5. Employer's liability for compensation. - (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter : Provided that the employer shall not be so liable - (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days. (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to; (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal of disregard by the workman of any safety guard, or other device which he knew to have been proved for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen." The learned senior counsel relies upon Section 3(1)(b)(ii) which provides that the employer could not be held liable, while the workman was wilfully disobedient, to an order expressly given by the employer for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that while the language employed in the above said provision is carefully scrutinised, Section 3(1)(b) does not apply to a case of death nor a permanent disablement and it would be applicable only to an injury which may arise in the course of and out of employment. He is definite in his argument that only element expected to be established by the claimant under the Act is "causal connection between the accident and the employment" and if such aspect is shown to the satisfaction of the Court by the Claimant, then there would be no impediment for the Court to award compensation. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention placed much reliance upon two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Apex Court was pleased to formulate guidelines as to the jurisdiction exercisable by Workmen Compensation; Commissioner. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention placed much reliance upon two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Apex Court was pleased to formulate guidelines as to the jurisdiction exercisable by Workmen Compensation; Commissioner. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another (2007) 11 SCC 68 : 2007-I-LLJ-474 the Apex Court has rendered the findings for testing requirements in Section 3 of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment goes thus at p. 477 of LLJ : "23. There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in BSI Corpn. In regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The principles are : (i) There must be a causal connection, between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (ii) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (iii) If the evidence brought on records establishes a grater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case." The learned senior counsel also garnered support from also garnered support from another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another 2009-II-LLJ-305 wherein it is held as follows at p. 309 : "20. It is the specific case of the claimants that on November 30, 2000 the deceased who was driving the vehicle on the direction of the insured had gone to Gurugunta from Siraguppa. There he had gone to a temple and was sitting on the steps of the pond in the temple and he slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning. This according to us is not sufficient in view of the legal principles delineated above to fasten liability on either the insurer or the insured. There he had gone to a temple and was sitting on the steps of the pond in the temple and he slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning. This according to us is not sufficient in view of the legal principles delineated above to fasten liability on either the insurer or the insured. The High Court was not justified in holding that the present appellant was liable to pay compensation." As per the above two decisions, when the Court proceeds to find out the cause of death of workman, it should obtain a lead that there should be connecting link between death and the employment. In the case of Conductor or driver of motor vehicle, if he dies within the duty hours, in case it could be inferred that the cause of death arose from the stress or strain obtained by the employment, then, it can be termed to be an accident injury enabling the claimant to get compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents would cite a Division Bench decision of this Court which lays stress on the point of ascertaining causal connection between the employment and the accident. In Shanmuga Mudaliar and Others v. T. V. Noorjahan and Others 2003-I-LLJ-776 (Mad), the Division Bench after following the principles in English case, has held as follows at p. 777 : "4. The word "accident" has not been defined under the act. But the definition given to this word by Lord Macnaghten in the case of Fenton v. Thorley and Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 443 has been accepted as a most appropriate meaning of the word. He has defined accident "as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed". The connection between the accident and the employment may be established if the strain had contributed to or accelerated or hastened the accident. It may no be possible at all times to produce direct evidence of the connection between the employment and the injury, but if the probabilities are more in favour of the applicant then the Commissioner is justified in inferring that the accident did in fact arise out of and in the course of the employment." On behalf of claimants side, the Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court is also relied upon, which is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C. S. Gopalakrishnan and Another 1989-II-LLJ-30 (Ker) in which it is held that while a bus conductor died of heart attack when sleeping in the parked bus during rest hours, while the employer contended that the bus conductor suffered a natural death when he was not on duty and had no obligation to sleep inside the bus, since the employer had not provided any shed or shelter for the crew at the place of halting or for the safety of the bus and driver and conductor slept in the bus for its safety under instructions from the owner, then it has to be discerned and decided that there is causal connection between the death and employment and employer ought to be held liable. It is also stressed in the decision that stress and strain of the work due to long hours duty with limited rest interval contributed to his death which arose out of and during the course of employment. Even though it was suggested on behalf of the claimants to the management witness that since only on the instruction of the superiors, the deceased entered into the generator room, there was neither a pleading in the claim petition nor in the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 to that effect. However, it comes to light that before she left the work place, she entered into the generator room and even though if it is treated that she has wilfully violated instructions displayed by the employer, it is to be seen that whether the employer has to be held liable for his contribution to the accident. The photograph has been produced before this Court which shows that a board has been fixed on the outside wall of the generator room by stating that (in Tamil) except the Generator operator, others should not enter inside. Peculiarly it is seen that the date has been put underneath to the notice as August 10, 2001, which is not required. Probably it is written to probablise the displaying of the notice board out side the generator room. This Court does not accept the photographs for the reason of improbabilities. Peculiarly it is seen that the date has been put underneath to the notice as August 10, 2001, which is not required. Probably it is written to probablise the displaying of the notice board out side the generator room. This Court does not accept the photographs for the reason of improbabilities. It is incumbent on the part of the employer to provide adequate safeguards to the place in which electrical operations are going on so as to secure it from the reach of other employees and a qualified electrician should also be deputed there to safeguard the place. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to Section 21 of the Factories Act, 1948 which enumerates various safeguards statutorily expected to be provided by an employer in his establishment. Section 21(1)(a) of the Act provides for securely fencing by safe guards of substantial construction for every part of an electric generator, a motor or rotary converter. While the facts of the present proceedings are carefully scanned, it is manifest that the generator room has not been provided with any safeguards. It appears to be easily accessible to anybody else. Further, there is no evidence nor pleadings to show that a qualified operator was deputed who was in-charge of the generator room. By not providing adequate safe guards to a generator providing electricity, it has to be presumed and be held that the employer has also contributed to the accident thereby leading to an inference that there is causal connection between the employment and the accident. Even though the Commissioner has observed that at the time of accident, the injured is in the work place, it has to be decided whether the accident took place in the course of and out of employment. This Court clarifies the above said observations by stating that in the absence of production of necessary records expected to be maintained by the employer with reference to the shift timings, an adverse inference, could be drawn and it is to be necessarily observed that shift timing was between 6.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. on the next day and during that time since the generator was not provided with sufficient safeguards, she entered the room and involved in the accident sustaining serious injuries. Post mortem certificate Exhibit P-2, would say that she suffered serious lacerated injuries on her right shoulder and in the ribs and the opinion goes to the effect that she died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. In the light of the above said observations and findings, the indisputable conclusion, which could be reached by this Court is that the accident took place during the course of and out of employment. The Commissioner has fixed Rs. 4,000/- as monthly wages to the deceased and adopted appropriate formula to arrive at the compensation, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is proper that does not warrant any inference from this Court. The substantial questions of law are answered as indicated above. The award does not suffer from any infirmity, which deserves to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.