ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 10th May. 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. Labour Court. Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 2 of 2005, determining a compensation to the extent of Rs.3.38.660/- and awarding the same to the legal representatives of the deceased an employee, who admittedly was functioning as a Security Guard of the appellant M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Darbhanga House. Ranchi. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer essentially on the ground that the compensation could not have been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased employee as the deceased employee was killed by some hard and blunt substance and his death could not be construed to have taken place in course of discharge of his duty to the employer. 3. Initially, we felt Impressed with this argument but the counsel for the respondents Instantly explained the position and submitted that the deceased employee was functioning as a Security Guard, who was on patrolling duty from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the campus of the employer early In the morning for which the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner rightly recorded a finding that the death of the deceased employee took place while he was on duty or at the time of returning home after his duty hours. 4. Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has not recorded a conclusive finding in this regard that the death of the deceased, in fact, took place in the manner alleged by the claimants of the deceased and hence the inference drawn by the Court below is fit to be assailed. 5. However, on hearing the counsel for the parties, in the light of the evidence recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, we find no substance in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants, as the finding recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to the effect that the deceased employee was either killed during the duty hours or Immediately after the duty hours while returning home, cannot be held to be an unreasonable Inference drawn from the circumstantial evidence. The relationship of employer and employee between the appellant-Central Coalfields Ltd. and the deceased is neither under challenge nor it is in doubt and it is also an established fact that the deceased by the nature of his duty had to guard the premises and counter any attack of untoward incident on the employer organization. 6. Hence, if the body of the deceased was found early in the morning soon after his duty hours was over, it is difficult to doubt the correctness of the finding recorded by the Court below, which although was based on circumstantial evidence, the inference drawn by the learned Court below cannot be treated as illegal or unjustified. 7. In the circumstances, the amount awarded to the heirs of the deceased employee under the Workmen Compensation Act is not fit to be interfered with. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, at the admission stage itself. Appeal dismissed.