GMC runs a public utility transport service in Lucknow managed by a committee known as Grand Electric Supply and Transport Committee (GEST). GEST owns a number of buses and corporation employs staff including bus drivers

As per Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, to make the employer liable, it is necessary that the injury is caused by an accident which must be arising out of and in the course of employment. The expression 'arising out of employment' suggests some causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The expression 'in the course of employment' suggests the period of employment and the place of work. In other words, the workman, at the time of accident must have been employed in the performance of his duties and the accident took place at or about the place where he was performing his duties. The expression 'employment' is wider than the actual work or duty which the employee has to do. It is enough if at the time of the accident the employee was in actual employment although he may not be actually turning out the work. Even when the employee is resting, or having food, or taking his tea or coffee, proceeding from the place of employment to his residence, and accident occurs, the accident is regarded as arising out of and in the course of employment. 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 (1920) Ltd., 1977 Lab. I.C. NOC 14 ]. 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 ( TNCS Corporation v. Poonamalai, 1994 II LLN 950 ). Hence, the widow of the deceased employee in the present case will succeed in her claim for death compensation.