A workman when he was on his way to the place of work, was murdered in a communal riot. Whether the widow of the deceased workman will succeed in getting compensation? Explain.

It is well settled that the concept of "duty" is not limited to the period of time the workman actually commenced his work and the time he downs his tools. It extends further in point of time as well as place. But there must be nexus between the time and place of the accident and the employment. If the presence of the workman concerned at the particular point was so related to the employment as to lead to the conclusion that he was acting within the scope of employment that would be sufficient to deem the accident as having occurred in the course of employment [Weaver v. Tradegar Iron and Coal Co. Ltd., (1940) 3 All, ER 15]. It is known as doctrine of notional extension of employment; whether employment extends to the extent of accident depends upon each individual case. In the given case, the widow will succeed, as the employer is liable to pay compensation. The theory of 'notional extension' is applicable in this case. There are reasonable extensions in both time and place and the workman is regarded as in the place of work or had left his employer's premises. In this case, the workman was murdered when he was on his way to the place of work. The accident must be taken to be arising out of and in the course of employment. If the deceased had not left the house for work on that date, he would not have been murdered in the communal riot. Death was caused in relation to his employment and it was caused in the course of employment. Therefore, his widow will succeed in getting compensation from the employer. The citation relevant in this regard is TNSC Corp. LtdV/SPoomalai 1995 1 LLJ 378 (Madras).