Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 30 (1) (a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Hazaribagh, in W.C. Case No.3 of 2005 by which the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Hazaribagh ordered the opposite party- the appellant company to pay a sum of Rs.3,68,340/- as workmen's compensation to the claimants in respect of death of Nageshwar Mahto, a piece rated workman of the opposite party- the appellant company.
(3.) It is the case of the claimant that the said deceased- Nageshwar Mahto on 08.10.2002 received personal injury by accident in course of his employment resulting in his death on the same day. It is further pleaded that on 08.10.2002, the deceased was a piece rated worker in Sarubera colliery and on that day he went to Sarubera colliery to perform his duties. While coming back after performing his duties at 5:15 p.m. at the colliery within the colliery premises near Sarubera which is the lease hold area of the opposite party- the appellant company, he was struck with the lightening and as a result he died. On the other hand it is the case of the opposite party- the appellant company that the said Nageshwar Mahto died because of a natural calamity and that too outside of the work premises and lease hold area of the employer and also beyond working hours at a place 3 kilometers away from the work site where he was present as a member of public. Though the appeal is under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the provision of which reads as under:- "No appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees." yet no substantial question of law has been formulated by this court at the time of admission of this appeal vide order dated 04.11.2010.;