1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.466 of 2016 ------ Major Officer Commanding, 111 Road Construction Company, GREF, 56 APO, P.O. & P.S. Leh, Leh, District Leh, State Jammu & Kashmir, the appellant is represented through its duly authorized signatory namely Shri Hemant Kumar Sharma, son of Late Dinesh Kumar Sharma, posted as Captain cum Officer-in-Charge, 336 Surfacing Platoon, c/o 111 Road Construction Company, P.O. Upshi, P.S. Leh, Leh, District Leh, State Jammu & Kashmir .... .... …. Appellant Versus Sonamuni Tudu daughter of Late Dewan Tudu and sister of Late Mistry Tudu, Village Boria, P.O. Boria, P.S. Ramgarh, District Dumka, State Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pratik Sen, Amicus Curiae ------ Order No.10 / Dated : 18.03.2025 Heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellant on the point of admission. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award of compensation in W.C. Case No.23/2011 whereby and whereunder compensation amount of Rs.2,81,983/- with simple interest @ 6% from the date of death of the deceased has been awarded in favour of the claimant, for death during course of his employment while working as labour in high altitude road construction project at Leh. 2. The main ground of appeal is that the deceased- Mistry Tudu did not die during course of his employment rather he died due to consumption of excessive alcohol as per post-mortem examination report. 3. In support of the contention, it is submitted that after the death of the workman, an information regarding this was sent to his father that the deceased died during course of his employment. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the claimants to establish that the deceased died in any accident during course of his employment. 4. On perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that there is no dispute whatsoever that the deceased- Mistry Tudu was a workman under the appellant and was engaged in blasting of stone in road construction 2 project. He was employed from 06.06.2004, whereas he died on 02.10.2004. The death certificate has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1. The learned Labour Court dismissed the plea of the appellant- Company on the ground that no contrary evidence was led to establish that the death was natural and not during course of employment. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It was incumbent on the part of the appellant to adduce some evidence to substantiate the pleadings regarding the averments made. In the absence of any evidence when the deceased was under employment and died in inhospitable climatic condition of Leh, then it cannot be said that the death was not during course of employment. 6. In any case, the cause of death is a question of fact and I do not find any substantial question of law for admission of this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Considering the assistance rendered by Mr. Pratik Sen, who was Amicus Curiae in this case, Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi is directed to pay remuneration of Rs. 5000/- to him at the earliest. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit