JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have consented that the appeal be disposed of at this stage. 2. Respondents No. 2 to 6, heirs of Mukut Behari Lai Sharma, who was employed with the appellants as Line Man and died while discharging duties, laid a claim, which was accepted by the learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. Aggrieved against the order the present Misc. Appeal has been filed. 3. The only ground that has been pressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the deceased had not been sent by any authority of the appellant and that the accident occurred at about 8 p.m. and the compensation can be granted only if accident occures out of and in the course of employment. The learned Counsel has also cited Executive Engineer v. Bachno Bai (RLW 1989 (1) 188) and the learned Counsel for the respondents has cited Indian Rare Earths Ltd. vs. A. Subaida Beevi and others, 1981 T.A.C. (All India Transport and Accidents Cases 359) , in support of the impugned order. The learned Commissioner after a detailed and exhaustive order came to a firm finding that the deceased admittedly had performed his duties at Roopaheli Electric Station and immediately before his death in the Hospital, he stated that he had gone to Rupaheli for the fault repair and while coming he has met with the accident and giving the benefit of accident, the claim petition was allowed. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the aforesaid authorities and after carefully scrutinising the impugned order, I find that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Commissioner in arriving at the decision. The order is perfectly just and no fault can be found with it and I find no fault in the reasonning given by the learned Commissioner and the same is affirmed. 5. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. *******