JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal filed by the legal representative of the employee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 rejecting the claim of the employee for compensation. 2. It is undisputed that the deceased Vitthal was the employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board the predecessor of the present respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. It is undisputed that the incident of stabbing had occurred within the premises of the workshop during the working hours. 3. The only substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the injury was caused to the appellant by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ?” 4. Shri N.R. Saboo, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that it being an admitted fact that the incident had occurred within the premises of the workshop and during the working hours, the burden was on the respondent-employer to prove that the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of the employment. It is submitted that the respondent has not led any evidence to discharge the burden of proving that the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of the employment and the learned Commissioner has committed an error in not appreciating theses aspects which has resulted in the erroneous order. The learned Advocate has submitted that once it is proved that the accident had taken place at the place of work and during the working hours, the respondent is liable to pay the amount of compensation. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1) Judgment given by this Court in the case of Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and another vs. Kusumtai wd/o Ganpatrao Dhote and others, reported in 2013(5) Mh.L.J. 102 . 2) Judgment given by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Arti wd/o Ashok Kapshikar and others, reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 108 . 3) Judgment given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Asgari Begam and others .vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2000(85) FLR 860. 4) Judgment given by the High Court of Orissa in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nalini Dehuri and others, reported in 2000 II CLR 744. 3) Judgment given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Asgari Begam and others .vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2000(85) FLR 860. 4) Judgment given by the High Court of Orissa in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nalini Dehuri and others, reported in 2000 II CLR 744. 5) Judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi (SMT) and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113 . 6) Judgment given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Usha Bai .vs. Yogendra Singh, reported in 2002 III LLJ 87. 5. Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that only because the incident had taken place within the premises of workshop during the working hours, it does not mean that the employer is liable to pay the compensation unless it is proved by the claimant that the accident had arisen out of and in the course of the employment. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, reported in 1969 A.C.J. 422. The learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the burden to prove that the accident had arisen out of and in the course of employment is on the claimant and it having failed to plead and prove in this regards, it was not necessary for the respondent to lead any evidence in the matter. The learned Advocate has submitted that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is proper and does not require any interference. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, in paragraph 5 has dealt with the issue as follows: “5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, in paragraph 5 has dealt with the issue as follows: “5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of employment” are understood to mean that “during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.” In other words there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression “arising out of the employment” is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley, Lord Summer laid down the following test for determining whether an accident “arose out of the employment.”. “There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this : was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury ? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of the accident was within the sphere of the employment, or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury.” 7. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the incident in the present case had any nexus with the employment of the deceased employee. Moreover, the appellant has not even pleaded that the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased employee had any nexus with the employment of the deceased. Apart from the fact that the judgments given by this Court in the case of Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and another .vs. Kusumtai wd/o Ganpatrao Dhote and others and in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Arti wd/o Ashok Kapshikar and others are based on the facts of those cases, the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak was not brought to the notice of this Court. Similarly, the other judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant are of no assistance to the appellant considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak. 8. In view of the above, I hold that the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased employee, had not arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased employee. The learned Commissioner has properly appreciated the controversy and the order passed by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be suffering from any irregularity and illegality. 9. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.