ORDER : 1. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Labour Commissioner for Employees Compensation was justified in dismissing the claim petition preferred by the claimants on the ground that the death of deceased – Mansingh took place not arising out of and in the course of his employment?” 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the order/award passed on 19.05.2015 by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation cum Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G) in Case No. 114/WC Act/Fatal claim/2007, whereby the claim case has been dismissed. 3. Facts of the present case, are that appellant No. 1 is the wife of the late Mansingh Khande, whereas appellants No. 2 to 4 are daughters and sons and appellants No. 5 and 6 are the mother and father of the deceased. The appellants filed a claim case under Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, on account of the death of Mansingh Khande. Mansingh Khande was employed as a salesman in Welcome Distillery, Chherkabandha, Village Nevra and he was getting Rs. 3,050/- salary per month. On 08.05.2006, when the deceased was returning to his house, after completing his duty, he dashed a standing tree and, consequently, succumbed to injuries. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 4,07,700/- as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum. The respondent authorities filed the written statement and denied the contents of the claim and stated that the workman had not died during the course of employment; therefore, the employer is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Learned Commissioner framed issues and held that no information was given by the deceased to the superior authority to leave the headquarters and the deceased did not die during the course of employment. The learned Commissioner further held that at the time of death, the age of the deceased was around 32 years and he was getting Rs. 3050/- per month, but he is not entitled to get compensation as the deceased did not expire out of and during the course of employment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that undisputedly, the deceased was working under the respondents and this fact is evident from the written statement as well as the evidence of the respondents. 3050/- per month, but he is not entitled to get compensation as the deceased did not expire out of and during the course of employment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that undisputedly, the deceased was working under the respondents and this fact is evident from the written statement as well as the evidence of the respondents. He would further argue that the deceased was returning to his home, after completion of his duty and it was his routine practice and no residential quarter was provided to the deceased in the factory premises. He would also argue that as per the notional extension theory, the compensation is to be paid to the workers in case of an accident during the course of employment, but the actual cause of adopting this theory was to include within its scope, the injury and danger originated due to employment but not necessarily at the workplace, during working hours or while coming or going to the place of work; thus, the learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in holding that the deceased employee is not entitled to get compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari would submit that there are findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the deceased was a Government employee and a sum of Rs. 18,300/- was given as an ex-gratia immediately after the death of the deceased by the department. He would further argue that a compassionate appointment has also been given to the wife of the deceased on the post of Shikshakarmi and she is posted at Government Primary Boys School, Ganiyari, District- Bilaspur (C.G), therefore, the learned Labour Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim case. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. From a perusal of the records, it is quite vivid that the deceased (Mansingh Khande) died on 08.05.2006 while he was returning to his home from factory premises as he dashed a standing tree and sustained grievous injuries. Claimants as well as respondents have stated that the deceased was not a Government employee, but he was engaged as a daily wages employee. Claimants as well as respondents have stated that the deceased was not a Government employee, but he was engaged as a daily wages employee. The department has not produced any document to demonstrate that the deceased was a Government Employee and no appointment order was issued in his favour, therefore, it can safely be held that the deceased was a workman. 9. Further, the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed only on the ground that while the deceased was returning from the factory premises, he dashed his motorcycle against the standing tree and thus he did not die out of and during the course of employment. It is also held by the learned Commissioner that the accident took place about 14-15 km. away from the factory premises. The postmortem report shows that the cause of death was the injuries sustained by the deceased in the aforesaid accident. 10. The Apex Court in the matter of Leela Bai v. Seema Chouhan reported in (2019) 4 SCC 325 , while dealing with a similar issue in paras 8 & 9 held as under:- 8. The deceased did not remain at the bus stand living in the bus as a member of the public or by choice after arrival at Burhanpur till departure for Indore the next morning. It is not the case of the respondent that the deceased was at liberty to proceed home and return at leisure the next morning after parking the bus at the Burhanpur bus stand at night. The Act being a welfare legislation, will have to be interpreted in the facts of each case and the evidence available, to determine if the accident took place in the course of employment and arose out of the employment. In Agnes (supra) it was observed : “9 . … ‘… The man’s work does not consist solely in the task which he is employed to perform. It includes also matters incidental to that task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employers’ premises to another, and periods of rest may all be included.” 9. … ‘… The man’s work does not consist solely in the task which he is employed to perform. It includes also matters incidental to that task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employers’ premises to another, and periods of rest may all be included.” 9. In the facts of the present case and the nature of evidence, there was a clear nexus between the accident and the employment to apply the doctrine of “notional extension” of the employment considered in Agnes (supra) as follows: (AIR p. 199, para 11) “It is now wellsettled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer’s premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer’s premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all time this theory of notional extension.” 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case in light of the judgment discussed above, it is quite apparent that the concerned department has not adduced any evidence that any residential accommodation was allotted to the deceased to stay at the workplace, which shows that the deceased employee stayed outside and used to commute on his motorcycle and unfortunately, he met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. 12. The man’s work does not consist solely of the task which he is employed to perform. It also includes matters incidental to that task. 12. The man’s work does not consist solely of the task which he is employed to perform. It also includes matters incidental to that task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employer’s premises to another, and periods of rest may all be included, therefore, in the present case also the theory of notional extension of the employee's premises would apply as dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Leela Bai (supra) if a workman was in a factory or premises, he has to go his house and again he has to come to the actual place of work, therefore, there would be some reasonable extension for both time and the place and workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer’s premises. 13. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Commissioner has committed an error of law in dismissing the claim case of the appellants/claimants. 14. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellants/claimants and the order/award passed by the claims tribunal in case No. 114/WC Act/Factal claim/2007 dated 19.05.2015 is hereby set aside. 15. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation cum Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G) to decide the claim case afresh after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 16. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.