Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 there must be some nexus between the death of workman and his employment in order to make the employer liable to pay compensation. Explain.

The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a social security legislation. It imposes statutory liability upon an employer to discharge his moral obligation towards his employees when they suffer from physical disabilities and diseases during the course of employment in hazardous working conditions. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 provides for payment of compensation to the employees and their dependents in the case of injury by industrial accidents including certain occupational diseases arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in death or disablement. The Act provides for cheaper and quicker mode of disposal of disputes relating to compensation through special proceedings than possible under the civil law. There must be some nexus between death of workman and his employment in order to make employer liable to pay compensation. To make the employer liable it is necessary that the injury caused by an accident must have arisen in the course of employment. It means that the accident must take place at a time and place when he was doing his master's job. 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. It is known as doctrine of notional extension of employment; whether employment extends to the extent of accident depends upon each individual case. A workman while returning home after duty was murdered within the premises of the employer. It was held that there was casual and proximate connection between the accident and the employment. Since the workman was on spot only for his employment and his wife is entitled for compensation (Naima Bibi v. Lodhne Colliery). If an employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place by reason where he has to face a peril which causes the accident then the casual connection is established between the accident and the employment.