PRADIP MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 24. 1. 1997 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation (Dhen-kanal), Angul, in W. C. Case No. 21 of 1992. ( 2 ) THE case of claimants-respondents is that their son, deceased Dhaneswar Sahu, died on 21. 9. 1991 in course of his employment due to lightning shock while he was working under the Divisional Forest Officer, Kendu Leaves, Athamallik. Deceased is stated to have been engaged as a binder of Kanteikolia Phadi under the Hondapa kendu Leaves Range of Athamallik. On the same day at about 6. 20 p. m. the Range officer (KL), Handapa Range, lodged the f. I. R. before Officer-in-charge, Handapa police Station and the same was registered as U. D. P. S. Case No. 7 of 1991. Legal heirs of the deceased had filed W. C. Case No. 21 of 1992 before the Workmen's Commissioner and prayed for compensation due to death of the only earning member of the family in course of his employment. The case of opposite party-appellant, in the written statement, is that the deceased was not engaged by the opposite party nor by any of his officers, but he was engaged by one Ratnakar Sahu, binding-mate to assist him in the binding work, since the same could not be done alone. It is further stated in the written statement that the deceased died due to natural calamity, i. e. , lightning near a nala not in the binding centre, and it is further stated that the binding work was completed at Analaberini phadi on 20. 9. 1991 and again it was started on 29. 9. 1991. In order to prove their case claimants-respondents have examined as many as two witnesses and the opposite party-appellant has examined one witness only, i. e. , the ex-Range Officer. ( 3 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record and documents produced by both the sides, the Workmen's Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased dhaneswar Sahu was engaged as a binder on 21. 9. 1991 at Kanteikolia Phadi and he died due to lightning in course of his employment. The Commissioner, by his order dated 24. 1. 1997 awarded compensation of rs. 67,200 to respondents-claimants. 9. 1991 at Kanteikolia Phadi and he died due to lightning in course of his employment. The Commissioner, by his order dated 24. 1. 1997 awarded compensation of rs. 67,200 to respondents-claimants. He further directed opposite party-appellant to deposit the said amount towards compensation through a bank draft and in default to pay the same within the stipulated date, opposite party-appellant would be liable to pay penalty and interest under section 4-A (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. ( 4 ) MR. Das, learned Additional Standing counsel, on behalf of appellant, submits that deceased was not coming under the purview of 'workman' as envisaged under section 2 (1) (n) of the Act. He further submitted that the work of Analaberini phadi was completed on 20. 9. 1991 and again the binding work started in Kanteikolia Phadi on 29. 9. 1991. Therefore, the claim of the claimants-respondents that deceased Dhaneswar Sahu was a 'workman, ought not to have been accepted by the Commissioner and as such the award is liable to be set aside. Mr. Nandi, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the F. I. R. dated 21. 9. 1991 lodged by the employer and the police report clearly reveal that deceased dhaneswar on the very day of the occurrence was engaged as a binder. While he was working in the said Phadi he went for bath and immediately after he returned to resume his unfinished work of binding the occurrence took place. He further submitted that on 21. 9. 1991 the said binding work was not closed as revealed from Exh. A, which was produced by the opposite party. Therefore, Mr. Nandi submits that death of the deceased was in course of his employment as a labourer and thus, he comes under the provisions of section 2 (1) (n)of the Act. ( 5 ) THE short question raised in appeal is as to whether the accident took place in the course of employment of the deceased dhaneswar or not, is a question of fact which is not available to be challenged in appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of this court in Divisional Railway Manager, south Eastern Railway v. P. Vijayaratnam, 2001 ACJ 1415 (Orissa ). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of this court in Divisional Railway Manager, south Eastern Railway v. P. Vijayaratnam, 2001 ACJ 1415 (Orissa ). This court in the said decision has held that the finding to the effect that the deceased was a workman under the appellant and had succumbed to injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment is essentially a finding of fact and is not available to be challenged in appeal. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the case at hand, the evidence on record reveals that the deceased was engaged as binder and while he was working in Kanteikolia Phadi, he went for bath and while he was returning to Phadi to attend to his unfinished work, the accident occurred. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and OPW 1 and the documents Exhs. 1 and 2 and Exh. A clearly show that the deceased was doing the binding work on 21. 9. 1991 and in the course of his employment the accident occurred. Therefore, in view of such evidence and the decision of this court referred to above, this court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner that the accident arose out of and in course of employment. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner having not been challenged before this court, that does not necessitate the court to discuss the same. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award of the workmen's Commissioner. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.