1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under section 30 of Workmen™s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) against the award dated 2.3.2002 passed by the (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Doda, under the Act, exercising the powers of Commissioner, in case titled Ghulam Mohd. Versus Chief Executive Officer, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Katra. 2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Ghulam Mohd-respondent, filed a petition under section-3 of the Act for compensation in respect of the death of Ghulam Hussain by pleading that his son deceased-Ghulam Hussain was working as a labourer for construction of Aadh Kunwari Link Road at Katra, under the employment of Chief Executive Officer Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Katra, District Udhampur, and on 03-02-1998 during the work a landslide came from above and a stone therein struck the deceased consequent upon which he expired. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was 18 years old and his monthly wages were Rs. 3600/- per month. 3. On appearance, the appellant filed objections in which it was denied that the accident had occurred during the working hours. It was further pleaded that the deceased had died due to his own negligence as he after finishing his work, went about 4 kms away from the site of work for collecting the firewood. 4. The learned Commissioner, after recording the evidence of the claimant as well as of the appellant, awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant, aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error in awarding the compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was employed by the appellant as labourer under the supervision of Mate Hem Raj, in widening Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, Old Track, near Alok View Point. It is also admitted that the deceased had died in an accident. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was employed by the appellant as labourer under the supervision of Mate Hem Raj, in widening Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, Old Track, near Alok View Point. It is also admitted that the deceased had died in an accident. The only point on which the award has been challenged is that the deceased had died due to his own negligence as he after finishing his work, went about 4 kms away from the site of work for collecting the fire wood where a landslide came from above and stone therein struck the deceased and he received injuries, as a result of which he died, as such, he died not during the course of his employment with the appellant. 7. Before considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be appropriate to notice the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act, which reads as under: - 3. Employer™s liability for compensation: - (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable - (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding (three) days; (b) in respect of any (injury, not resulting in death, (or permanent total disablement) caused by) an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.� In case Bhagubai versus General Manager, Central Rly., AIR 1955 BOM 105, the Bombay High Court held as under: - ¦.there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The authorities have clearly laid down that if the employees in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril, a causal connection is established between the employment and the accident.� 8. Now it is to seen whether the accident had occurred during the course of his employment or there was a casual connection between the employment and accident. 9. To prove that the deceased had died during the course of the employment of the appellant, PW-1, Abdul Latif and PW-2, Hasan-ud-Din were examined. They have given minute details of the accident and also in the manner in which it had occurred. They are also the eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is deposed by them that the accident had taken place at 4 P.M, when they were at work. 10. The appellant was directed to lead evidence in rebuttal. In compliance to the Court directions, the appellant examined two witnesses namely Inderjeet Sharma (RW-1) and Hem Raj (RW-2). Both the witnesses examined by the appellant are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 10. The appellant was directed to lead evidence in rebuttal. In compliance to the Court directions, the appellant examined two witnesses namely Inderjeet Sharma (RW-1) and Hem Raj (RW-2). Both the witnesses examined by the appellant are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. No doubt, RW-2, Hem Raj had deposed that this accident had taken place 4 kms away from the site of work, but he stated in his cross-examination that Mate Asdu Bhat is actually in know of the facts as the work was being conducted under his supervision and direction. They were not in a position to say that the occurrence had taken place 4 kms away from the site exactly. RW-2, Hem Raj has given the time of accident as 7 P.M that the deceased is alleged to have gone for collecting the firewood. This version given by the appellant™s witnesses does not appeal to reason. 11. The Court can take judicial note of it that in this part of the Country in the Month of February at 7 P.M, there is pitch dark and in the dark no person will go to collect the fire wood. It is not in dispute that the food was being provided by the appellant and if the food was being provided then its preparation has to be done by the appellant. Even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the deceased was collecting the fire wood for cooking the meal that too was during the course of his employment with the appellant as there is direct nexus between the duty and accident. The appellant has also not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-.