JUDGMENT : M.Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in WC Case No. 5/97 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the claimants-respondents and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,46,225/- together with interest. 2. The claimants-respondents, who are widow and minor children, filed application claiming compensation for the death of her husband, who was employed in the appellant Company. The claimants' case was that Binod Kumar was the permanent employee of the appellant Telco company and had been working in the Forge Inspection Department. On 29.8.96 he was on 'B Shift' duty. During course of his duty he went to drink water near the water drinking point and while coming back after drinking water he fell down on the ground due to sleep of the leg, as the floor of the place was very much slippery. Because of that the deceased Binod Kumar sustained serious head injury and became unconscious and died due to the said injury. He was taken to Telco where he was declared dead. Subsequently post mortem was conducted and FIR was lodged in Telco Police Station. 3. The appellant Company contested the case stating, inter alia, that the deceased had not sustained injury, as he was not on duty or in course of his employment. According to the appellant Company the allegations that the place of drinking water of the floor of that area was slippery are false and frivolous. It is stated that though the deceased marked his attendance on the date of occurrence but he has not taken the work and, therefore, he cannot be said to be on duty. 4. The Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence brought on record, held that the accident took place in course of employment and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to get compensation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,46,225 has been awarded. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, assailed the impugned award as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that the deceased died because of injury caused in course of employment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,46,225 has been awarded. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, assailed the impugned award as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that the deceased died because of injury caused in course of employment. Learned Counsel submitted that no notice as required u/s 9 of the Ac was given to the Company. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in law in awarding interest and penalty. However, learned Counsel fairly admitted that there is no dispute with regard to age and salary of the deceased. 6. Mr. Singh further challenged the vires of the proviso to Section 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that memo of appeal must accompany a certificate of the Commissioner showing deposit of the awarded amount. So far vires of the aforesaid provision is concerned, we do not think it necessary to decide the same, which is kept open. 7. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the deceased died in course of his employment. 8. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant Company in the show cause specifically and categorically admitted that the deceased Binod Kumar was on duty in 'B Shift' and marked his attendance but he has not taken the work. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the deceased died in course of his employment. The appellant could not be able to show that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in law. 9. In that view of the matter, the finding that the deceased died in course of his employment cannot be interfered with. According to us, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 10. So far the order for payment of penalty is concerned, that can not be sustained in law. Admittedly, before passing award for payment of penalty, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. 11. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the appellant would be liable for payment of compensation assessed by the Tribunal which shall carry interest @ 6.5% per annum. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pradeep Kumar J.- I agree. Appeal disposed of.