2025:JHHC:34118 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No.399 of 2006 M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, through its Managing Director, PO and PS- B.S. City, District- Bokaro. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Umesh Kumar Malakar 2. Sri Madho Modi 3. Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad All sons of deceased- Workman, Kapilesh Prasad R/o Qr. No.1286, Sector -9A, Street VI of Bokaro Steel City, PO and PS- B.S. City, District- Bokaro. . .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the Respondents : None …... 14/ 14.11.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant- SAIL. 1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment/ order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in W.C. Case No.28 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the compensation of Rs.2,85,360/- has been awarded. I.A. No.2171 of 2013 2. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant-SAIL on the aforesaid I.A. filed for condonation of delay of 110 days in preferring the instant Misc. Appeal. 3. Notices were earlier issued and the same were duly served upon Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the claimants, but despite this, none has appeared and consequently, the instant appeal is being heard ex- parte. 4. Considering the grounds taken, the prayer for condonation of delay of 110 days in preferring the instant Misc. Appeal is allowed. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of. M.A. No.399 of 2006. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant on the point of Admission. 6. In order to admit the instant Misc. Appeal, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make out a case involving substantial questions of law for admission of the instant Misc. Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 2025:JHHC:34118 2 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased /workman- Kapilesh Prasad was on leave from 06.01.2003 to 13.01.2003 and before he resumed his duty, he died on 14.01.2003 when he met with an accident from a speeding trekker. 8. In this view of the matter, it is contended that the death did not occur during the course of his employment. 9. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the deceased –employee was not on leave on 14.01.2003 rather he was on leave from 06.01.2003 to 13.01.2003 and while on his way to join his duty, he met with an accident. 10. The finding of fact has been returned by the learned Labour Court that death took place during course of employment. The issues that have been raised are not questions of law, far-less a substantial question of law for admitting the instant Misc. Appeal. Under the circumstances, the instant Misc. Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed at the threshold at the stage of admission itself. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 14 .11.2025