JUDGMENT : M.D. SHAH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-original opponents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30-8-1996 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Rajkot, in Workmen Compensation (N.F.) Application No. 127 of 1992 awarding compensation of Rs. 33,888/- to the present respondent-original applicant with interest @ 6% per annum and penalty of Rs. 8472/-. Facts in short are that the present respondent-original applicant was a workman working at Khandheri Railway Station as a Cabin man. On the date of incident i.e. on 28-7-1987, on completion of his duty at 8 a.m., when the workman was returning to his quarter, he had a quarrel on his way with one Sidi and his wife, who threw stones at him causing serious injuries on his eyes. The workman therefore filed Workmen Compensation (N.F.) Application No. 127 of 1992 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation. 2. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the impugned judgment was delivered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the present appellants-original opponents. 3. I have heard learned advocates for the appellants, Ms. Archana Amin and Mr. Kishor M. Paul for the respondent. 4. It is argued by Ms. Archana Amin that there are ample evidences on record to show that accident occurred at the quarter of workman when he was on off-duty and, therefore, it could not be said that the workman had sustained injury during the course of employment and as a consequence of discharging his duties in the course of his employment, however, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by ignoring this aspect has directed the appellants to pay compensation to the workman. According to her, as per Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience), the employer is liable to pay compensation only if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In this connection, she has relied on the following reported decisions: (i) In the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607 (ii) In the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. In this connection, she has relied on the following reported decisions: (i) In the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607 (ii) In the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others, AIR 1958 SC 881 (iii) In the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 1 (iv) In the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) 11 SCC 668 (v) In the case of Rashida Haroon Kupurade vs. Div. Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 271 (vi) In the case of Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father vs. National Insurance Company and Another, (2013) 3 SCC 409 5. It is vehemently argued by learned advocate, Mr. Paul for the workman that law point is not involved in this case as question of law, which is mandatory under the Workmen's Compensation Act, was not framed in the appeal memo and, therefore, on this ground alone, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is further argued that after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has rightly come to the conclusion that while returning from the duty, on the way, the injury was sustained by the workman and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award deserving dismissal of the appeal. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J. as His Lordship was then) rendered in First Appeal No. 413 of 2000 in the case of Chief Secretary and Others vs. Kukabhai Deherbhai. 6. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as the original record pertaining to the case. 7. It is to be noted that during the admission hearing of this appeal, this Court (Coram: K.R. Vyas, J. as His Lordship was then) vide order dated 12.12.1996 admitted the appeal. Since the appeal has been admitted by this Court, it can safely be said that substantial question of law is involved in this appeal as postulated u/s 30 of the Act and, therefore, argument of Mr. Paul that no law point is involved in this appeal does not have any substance and is hereby negatived. 8. Since the appeal has been admitted by this Court, it can safely be said that substantial question of law is involved in this appeal as postulated u/s 30 of the Act and, therefore, argument of Mr. Paul that no law point is involved in this appeal does not have any substance and is hereby negatived. 8. The aspect which is required to be proved in the present case is as to whether the incident in question had occurred in the course of employment and also whether it occurred out of employment within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act which reads as under: 3. Employers 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, caused by an accident which is directly attributable. (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs. (ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. (iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. 9. This Court has gone through the oral evidence of independent witness, Station Master. He has categorically stated that when he was on duty in the morning, the workman came to station from staff quarters with severe injury on his right side eye and stated that son of Daud Sidi came at his quarters and threw stone at his eyes. He has also stated that he then recorded the statement of workman in which he obtained signature of one witness Ramesh also. This document is exhibited as Ex.43. 10. It appears that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not read the entire evidence of Station Master in proper perspective. He has also stated that he then recorded the statement of workman in which he obtained signature of one witness Ramesh also. This document is exhibited as Ex.43. 10. It appears that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not read the entire evidence of Station Master in proper perspective. He, however, picked up two or three sentences from the evidence of this witness and observed that as it is not stated by this witness as to how and in which manner incident has taken place, the entire evidence of this witness has been discarded and thereby he has committed error. 11. The Traffic Inspector, who carried out investigation in this case, has submitted his investigation report which is also on record. The report is reproduced herein-below: Due to quarrel in between Shri Dhiru M. Cabinman and son of Daud Sidi Pman KHDI on 28.7.87 after performing his complete duty from 20 to 8 hrs on 27/28.7.87 at about 8/57 hrs Shri Dhiru Mohan off duty cabinman rushed from his quarter and cried and the eye was covered up in his hands. On seeing such serious injury after rendering first aid he was immediately directed to Rly. hospital but again he was directed to city civil Hospital eye ward and his one eye which was badly injured the same was operated and removed. I had attended in the city eye hospital on 28.7.1987 it has been alleged by Shri Dhiru Mohan (off duty) cabinman that he was assaulted by the son of Shri Daud Sidi Pman KHDI in their quarters compound. The quarrel was started on personal issue and thus SM Khandheri had issued wire to SIGRP RJT for investigation. On enquiry it is revealed that Shri Dhiru Mohan was assaulted in off duty hrs and in their rly quarter thus the statement of Shri Dhiru Mohan and report of SM KHDI are enclosed herewith for your perusal please. 12. As per Traffic Inspector's report, accident took place in the quarter of the workman when he was not on duty. No doubt has been created in the mind of this Court about the genuineness of said report and hence, there is no reason to discard the said report. Further, this report gets support from the evidence of the Station Master. As per Traffic Inspector's report, accident took place in the quarter of the workman when he was not on duty. No doubt has been created in the mind of this Court about the genuineness of said report and hence, there is no reason to discard the said report. Further, this report gets support from the evidence of the Station Master. The Station Master, who has given first aid to the workman and took him to the hospital, naturally has no personal grievance against the workman. He also appears to be giving the true version of the incident and his evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court about the actual happening of the incident. Both the evidence of independent witness and Traffic Inspectors report prima facie prove that the incident had not taken place during the course of his official duty. 13. The document at Ex.42 is the statement of workman which is also a very important piece of evidence recorded in English. The true copy of the version of workman given before the competent authority is also reproduced hereunder: I was off duty at 8/- hrs date & H/o charge to Cman Shri Bhikha Soma LR PP HM and went to my quarter. Shri Daud Sidi and his wife stopped me near his quarter. Both abused me badly. I explained that yesterday my quarter lock was open and two pens were noticed missing. Daud Sidi told that we have not stolen your pens don't be asked such question to me or my family members. We were talking about pens mean while his younger son named Mohmood came and though a big stone which was left from ear and I saved. But he through a second stone on me which badly damaged my right side eye. I was seriously injured and my shirt and pant was badly with blood due to injury in eye and I immediately ran to station and complaint the SM above facts. SM given me first aid and shifted me by private motor cycle to Rajkot Rly. hospital from Rly. hospital I was shifted to Civil eye hospital where treatment was given to me. I lost my eye. Please do needful and help me. 14. SM given me first aid and shifted me by private motor cycle to Rajkot Rly. hospital from Rly. hospital I was shifted to Civil eye hospital where treatment was given to me. I lost my eye. Please do needful and help me. 14. As per the statement of workman, when he was not on duty at 8 a.m. and went to quarter, H/o charge was handed over to Cabinman Shri Bhika Soma, this incident took place near his quarters. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the workman was on off duty at his quarters and because of personal enmity, the incident in question occurred. Prima facie, it appears that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not at all discussed these evidence nor mentioned anything about this in his judgment. The Commissioner, relying only on the oral evidence of workman, came to the conclusion that while returning from duty, the incident in question occurred and, therefore, has recorded a finding that the injury was caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and has held the employer liable to pay compensation to the workman. 16. Reliance is placed on the following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali (supra) in paragraph 44: We are not oblivious of the proposition of law as was stated by Frankfurter, J. in J.J.O. Leary, Dy. Commnr. Fourteenth Compensation District vs. Brown-Pacific-Maxon Inc. 340 US 504 (1950) that the court will not disturb a finding of an Administrative Tribunal when two views are possible and only because the appellate court can take a contrary view. But in the instant case, the Commissioner did not go into the jurisdictional facts not arrived at any finding based on any legal evidence in regard to the causal connection between the employment and the death. 17. Reliance is further placed on the following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 28 and 29 in the case of the Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Another (supra): 28. 17. Reliance is further placed on the following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 28 and 29 in the case of the Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Another (supra): 28. In the case of Dover Navigation Company Limited vs. Isabella Craig, 1940 A.C. 190, it was observed by Lord Wright that:- Nothing could be simpler than the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment." It is clear that there are two condition to be fulfilled. What arise "in the course of" the employment is to be distinguished from what arises "out of the employment." The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the mans service. The latter to causality. Not every accident which occur to a man during the time when he is on his employment, that is directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do, gives a claim to compensation unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified. 29. Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principle laid down in this case, are instructive and should be borne in mind. In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any causal connection with the work he was doing at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment. 18. As per the principle laid down in the afore referred reported cases, to succeed, an employee has to prove that there was an accident, the accident had a casual connection with his employment and it must have been suffered in the course of employment. 19. However, in the present case, the original opponent-workman has failed to prove that the injury suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 28.7.1987 between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. has any connection with the employment and suffered in the course of employment within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. 19. However, in the present case, the original opponent-workman has failed to prove that the injury suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 28.7.1987 between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. has any connection with the employment and suffered in the course of employment within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that injury sustained by the workman at his quarter was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Since the workman has failed to prove these aspects, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation to the workman. The Commissioner has committed a serious error of law in not appreciating the evidence on record in true spirit and in proper perspective thereby fastening liability on the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner require to be quashed and set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. It may be noted that a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Y.B. Bhatt & H.H. Mehta, JJ. as Their Lordships were then) vide order dated 5.10.2001 passed in Civil Application No. 10803 of 2001 in First Appeal No. 4333 of 1996 permitted the original applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by the original opponents before the Labour Court, Rajkot, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. Thus, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 30.8.1996 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Rajkot, in Workmen Compensation (N.F.) Application No. 127 of 1992 are hereby quashed and set aside. As the amount deposited by the present appellants is withdrawn by the original applicant in pursuance of order passed by the Court, the appellants are at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of the said amount. No order as to costs.