Scribd
Upload
82 views3 pages

General Manager Case Law

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs Mrs. Agnes that the bus driver P. Nanu Raman was considered to be 'in the course of his employment' at the time of his fatal accident while using a B.E.S.T. bus to return home. The court emphasized that the right to travel on company buses was part of the job conditions, thus entitling his widow to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. This case broadened the interpretation of 'course of employment' to include situations related to job duties beyond the workplace.

Uploaded by

vaibhavilawange557
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views3 pages

General Manager Case Law

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs Mrs. Agnes that the bus driver P. Nanu Raman was considered to be 'in the course of his employment' at the time of his fatal accident while using a B.E.S.T. bus to return home. The court emphasized that the right to travel on company buses was part of the job conditions, thus entitling his widow to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. This case broadened the interpretation of 'course of employment' to include situations related to job duties beyond the workplace.

Uploaded by

vaibhavilawange557
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs Mrs.

Agnes (1963)

Introduction:
This is an important case where the Supreme Court of India interpreted the meaning of “course
of employment” under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The case was decided on May
10, 1963 by a bench of Justice K. Subba Rao, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, and Justice Raghubar
Dayal.

Facts of the Case:


●​ A man named P. Nanu Raman was a bus driver working for the Bombay Electricity
Supply and Transport (B.E.S.T.) Committee.​

●​ After finishing his day’s work, he boarded a B.E.S.T. bus to go home.​

●​ Unfortunately, the bus met with an accident, and Raman died due to the injuries.​

●​ His widow, Mrs. Agnes, filed a case before the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, claiming that her husband died due to an accident “out of and in the
course of his employment”, and hence she should be paid compensation.​

Issue Before the Court:


The main question was:

●​ Did the accident that caused Raman’s death happen “in the course of his employment”
as per Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?​

Section 3(1) of the Act says:

If a workman gets injured because of an accident “arising out of and in the


course of employment,” the employer must pay compensation.
Court’s Observations:
●​ The court noted that bus drivers like Raman had the right to travel in any bus belonging
to the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, not as a favour, but as a part of their job conditions.​

●​ This was done for the smooth running of the city’s transport service, and it was
understood that bus drivers might need to use these buses to go to or from work.​

●​ The court also referred to the “doctrine of reasonable or notional extension of


employment”.​
​
This means that in certain situations, a worker’s employment can be reasonably
extended to cover periods when they are not at their workplace but still doing something
related to their job — like traveling in a company bus if it’s part of their service terms.​

●​ The court explained that in the case of a city transport service, the entire fleet of buses
could be seen as the workplace (premises) because the nature of the job required
employees to use them.​

Judgment:
●​ Justice Subba Rao and Justice Mudholkar agreed that:​

○​ The accident occurred while Raman was in the course of his employment.​

○​ Mrs. Agnes was entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation


Act, 1923.​

●​ Justice Raghubar Dayal disagreed.​


​
He believed that:​

○​ The rule allowing drivers to travel in company buses was not a condition of their
employment.​

○​ So, it couldn’t be said that Raman was still “in the course of employment” when
the accident happened.​
Significance of the Case:
This case is important because it:

●​ Widened the meaning of “course of employment” under the Workmen’s Compensation


Act, 1923.​

●​ Showed that facilities given to employees to improve service efficiency (like free bus
rides for drivers) can be considered part of their job duties.​

●​ Recognized that a city transport service has unique needs and employees’ work-related
responsibilities might extend beyond their actual working hours or fixed workplace.​

In Simple Words:
Even though the bus driver had finished his shift, because he was using a bus provided by the
employer as part of his job conditions, the court said he was still “in the course of his
employment” when the accident happened. So, his family deserved compensation.

You might also like