JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.H. Rathod for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for the respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the record. 2. The appellants herein have preferred an application being W.C. Application No.46 of 2005 before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming Rs. 3,42,432/- with 50% penalty and interest from the employer. It is undisputed fact that original claimant is one Pirbhai Khanbhai Mansuri, who was serving as a Traffic Controller with opponents - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation', for short) at their Kheralu depot. However, after the death of original claimant, their legal heirs were joined on record. It is also undisputed fact that on 24.7.2002, when the victim was on his duty and when he was moving towards cash booking office with waybills of different buses as part of his duty as a Traffic Controller, he fell down and received grievous and serious injuries for which he had to take treatment upto 31.7.2002 and thereafter, he was advised to take total bedrest. Because of the serious injuries on head, he has received 100% physical disablement, since he could not stand and walk. Because of such injuries, he has preferred the claim as above. The opponents being employer of the victim, had resisted the claim by filing written statement on 5.12.2005, contending that victim has fallen down on his own and therefore, it cannot be said that he has received injuries out of and in course of his employment and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. 3. After allowing both the parties to adduce the evidence and after considering the rival submissions and evidence, by impugned judgment and award dated 3.6.2013, the Commissioner has rejected the application of the victim, solely on the ground that it cannot be said that victim has received injuries during the course of his employment. Because of such conclusion, the Commissioner has failed to scrutinize the amount of compensation that may be awarded to the victim. 4. On perusal of record, it becomes clear that the incident was reported to the respondents by the Local Depot Manager as per Exh.18 dated 23.8.2002; whereas, victim has addressed a letter to the respondents with medical certificates and discharge card with claim form endorsed by the Depot Manager of Kheralu to the divisional office on 19.8.2002. All such documents are at Exhs.19 to 23 respectively. All such documents are at Exhs.19 to 23 respectively. The perusal of such intimation makes it clear that there was categorical disclosure by the victim that on 24.7.2002, he fell down because his leg got stumbled with stone lying on the way to cash booking office in Kheralu Depot, when he was approaching the office with way 5. Bills as part of his duty. Because of such falling down, he received injuries on head for which he became unconscious on the spot. It is further stated that thereafter, other staff members have taken him to Doctor and after initial treatment by local Doctor, he was admitted into Lion's General Hospital at Mehsana where he was treated as an indoor patient till 31.7.2015. Certificate of local Doctor A.V. Memon, at Exh.20, categorically confirms that he was referred to Lion's General Hospital, Mehsana because of paralytic effect. Certificate at Exh.21 by Lion's General Hospital, Mehsana confirms that there is Cervical Spondylosis leading to Spinal Code Compression and that victim is permanently disabled and unfit to perform his duty. Exh.32 is the proforma form by Depot Manager, Kheralu regarding intimation of serious accident wherein there is categorical disclosure that victim has received head injury while managing waybills on duty near cash booking office where he stumbled down because of stone. The record shows that because of paralysis due to injuries on spinal cord in such incident, victim has submitted his resignation and preferred such application, claiming compensation submitting that he is 100% disabled and therefore, entitled to full compensation as prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. During trial, when the victim expired, and since the cause of action survives for legal heirs, they were joined as such. 6. However, the Commissioner has considered that victim does not fall within the purview of Section of 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and that even if he is workman under such provision, the incident has not taken place out of and during the course of his employment and therefore, opponents are not liable to compensate him. 7. I have perused the entire available record. 7. I have perused the entire available record. There is material irregularity, which results into illegality in impugned award, when Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the victim was in cadre of Driver and thereby, he is certainly a workman, but is posted to work as a Traffic Controller where he has to control the incoming and outgoing traffic of the ST Buses in particular depot and collecting waybills from conductors and depositing in cash booking offices. Thereby, in simple words, the function and duty of Traffic Controller is in no way a clerical work and they are not supposed to sit on desk permanently. Similarly, so far as place and nature of incident is concerned, it is quite clear and obvious that when victim was working in Corporation, which is plying buses from the bus depot and when victim has to walk within the bus depot for his duties, any injury within the depot can certainly be said to be an injury and incident out of and in the course of employment, more particularly, when it is the duty of the victim to approach different buses and cash booking office frequently. The definition of 'Workman' as provided u/s.2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act nowhere restricts the work of particular person; whereas, Section 3 subsequently provides that when personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. As discussed herein above, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the victim has not sustained injuries out of and during the course of his employment. 8. For the above purpose, reference to the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation & Another. Vs. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1 , is material. In such decision, the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has though discussed and clarified different provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, ultimately, it is held that even-though victim had suffered injury at the distance of 1 Km. away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory, it is to be considered as injury by an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment, making it clear that claimants are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory, it is to be considered as injury by an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment, making it clear that claimants are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In such case, the respondent - employee was to attend his duty at 4.30 p.m., before that when he was approaching the factory at 4.15 p.m. at the distance from 1 Km. from the factory, he met with an accident when he was going on his bicycle and hit by a lorry, even-though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that injuries suffered by him was arising out of and during the course of his employment. 9. In view of such legal position, it becomes crystal clear that Commissioner has committed a blunder in rejecting the application of the appellants. Therefore, there is need to interfere with the impugned judgment so as to modify such determination by the Commissioner. However, since Commissioner has not decided the issue regarding quantum of compensation that may be paid to the claimant, instead of entering into the exercise to calculate the quantum of compensation, at this stage, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the quantum in accordance with law, because for the purpose, there may be need to adduce necessary evidence by either side or both. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, now, it is categorically held that victim had met with an accident when he was on duty and he received serious injuries out of and in the course of employment when he stumbled upon a stone in the bus depot owned and managed by the respondents and thereby, it is the duty of the respondents to provide proper place and environment to its employees' so as to see that there may not be any mishap or injury to them. Thus, when victim has received serious injuries, resulting into 100% permanent disablement in the form of paralysis, he is certainly entitled to appropriate amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 11. Thus, when victim has received serious injuries, resulting into 100% permanent disablement in the form of paralysis, he is certainly entitled to appropriate amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 11. In view of above, the present First Appeal is partly allowed, whereby impugned judgment and award dated 3.6.2013 in W.C. Application No.46 of 2005 by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and Labour Court No.3, Ahmedabad is quashed and set-aside with a direction to such Commissioner to decide the application afresh for the limited purpose of calculating appropriate amount of compensation which the victim may be entitled to. Thereby, it is made clear that, now, the issue regarding entitlement of the victim to get compensation is not to be decided by the Commissioner afresh since it is specifically held by this judgment that victim is entitled to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the remand is for the limited purpose of consideration of quantum of compensation. In view of such clarity, Commissioner shall decide such application within six months, without fail. 12. The First Appeal is disposed of in above terms.