IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.517 of 2007 1. Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, P.O.- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 2. Officer Incharge, Dairy Farm, ( Agricultural Wing), Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District- Samastipur. Versus RESHMA DEVI, w/o late Pallu Ram, resident of village-Simri Gopal,P.O.Balha, District-Samastipur. ----------- 8. 21.7.2009 Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel for the appellants. The Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Begusarai in Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 6/2005: Reshma Devi vs. Officer Incharge, Dairy Farm and Ors. By the aforesaid decision, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has awarded an amont of Rs. 92,101/- as compensation to the respondent on the death of her husband. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to submit that the death of the workman cannot be said to have been caused by an accident, on account of an electric shock, arising out of and in course of his employment and thus in terms of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, no liability would lie upon the employer to pay any compensation to the deceased employee. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the amount of compensation has not been correctly arrived at by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. An appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Workmen’s 2 Compensation Act only lies if there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. From a perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the same is based upon an admission on behalf of the University that he was an employee of the University and he was on duty at the time when the accident took place. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has rightly held that the University by admitting that a much lesser amount of compensation was payable to the respondent had admitted the basic fact that the deceased was an employee of the University and that he had died on account of an accident arising out of an electric shock in course of the employment and was entitled to compensation. So far as the other submission of learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is evident that in the judgment of the Court below the entire matter has been decided on the basis of the age of the deceased employee as admitted by the University by applying the relevant factor and on the basis of the admitted wages being paid to the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any illegality having been committed by the Tribunal in the matter of calculation of compensation. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find that any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)