JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 12 of 2002 dated 24th August, 2005, whereby, the Respondent was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,54,021.35 paise. 2. Following questions have been raised for consideration by this Court: Whether the death, caused due to cardio respiratory failure, due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks can be said to be an occupational disease, peculiar to the employment-Border Road Organization especially, when the deceased has worked only for 55 days with the employer. 3. Factual Matrix: The deceased, namely, Uttam Kumar, who is son of the original applicant, was recruited as workman at Dumka in CPL Batch No. 10 under ICPL Mate Ganesh Mirdha. The deceased was deployed or work under 432 RMPL/119 RCC/756 BRTF with effect from 23rd November, 1999. Late Uttam Kumar reported on 13th January, 2000 to MI room at 432 RMPL with complaints of cough, weakness, giddiness and swelling over face and blood in sputum. On 14th January, 2000, as his condition was not improved, he was evacuated to 824 AMIR at Headquarter 119 RCC and, thereafter, he further evacuated to 1251 MSU where he was examined by Medical Officer, who in turn referred him to Civil Hospital, Hapoli where he was admitted on same day. The deceased could not recover from illness and died at 8:00 A.M. on 16th January, 2000. One man inquiry was constituted to probe into the cause of death of said Uttam Kumar and the report was given by the Inquiry Officer, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this appeal and it was also presented before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar. As per the said report, death of Late Uttam Kumar is due to cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks. Thus, the deceased was employed with the Appellant from 23rd November, 1999 and he expired on 16th January, 2000. Thus, the employment was only for the period of 55 days. As per the said report, death of Late Uttam Kumar is due to cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks. Thus, the deceased was employed with the Appellant from 23rd November, 1999 and he expired on 16th January, 2000. Thus, the employment was only for the period of 55 days. The Workmen's Compensation Case No. 12 of 2002 was instituted by father of the deceased before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar, who consider the death of deceased due to Tuberculosis and has observed that 55 days' employment period is sufficient to conduct deceased like Tuberculosis in occupation and the death was due to occupational disease, which is deemed to have been injury caused by accident arising out of in the course of employment, resulting in his death and, therefore, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,54,021.35 paise vide order dated 24th August, 2005. Being aggrieved by this order, present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred with I.A. No. 615 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4th August, 2008 passed the following order: M.A. No. 81 of 2006 and I.A. No. 615 of 2006 Mr. B.K. Jha, learned Counsel appeared for the Respondent No. 1 in the limitation matter and his name also appears in the list but he did not appear to say whether he appears in the main appeal or not. Issue notice upon Respondents as to why this case be not admitted or be disposed of at the admission stage itself; and as to why interim order be not passed; for which, requisites etc. under common-registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process must be filed within one week, failing which this appeal and I.A. No. 615 of 2006 shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Till further orders, the Respondents will not be allowed to withdraw the amount, deposited by the Appellant in the court below. Liberty is given to the parties to move for modification/clarification of this order. (emphasis supplied) 4. Arguments canvassed by the parties: Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was employed only for 55 days. Till further orders, the Respondents will not be allowed to withdraw the amount, deposited by the Appellant in the court below. Liberty is given to the parties to move for modification/clarification of this order. (emphasis supplied) 4. Arguments canvassed by the parties: Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was employed only for 55 days. Cause of death is card of respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and koche, as per the Medical Certificate, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this appeal and, therefore, there is no liability of the Appellant employer under Section 3(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the conclusion arrived at by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar that the deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis is an occupational disease referred in part C of Schedule-III of the Act, 1923. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for he Appellant that the essential condition for applicability of Section 3(2) of the Act, namely "occupational disease must be peculiar to the employment". The nature of employment has nothing to do with the cause of death of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar. The conclusion of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar is based upon no evidence and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the case of the deceased is failing within Part B of Schedule-III of the Act, 1923 and as the deceased has worked for less than six months' period, there is no liability of the Appellant under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act, 1923. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dated 11th July, 2006 in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2004 and has submitted that on the basis of this judgment if the death of the workman has no casual connection with the employment, there is no liability of the employer for compensation. Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2004 and has submitted that on the basis of this judgment if the death of the workman has no casual connection with the employment, there is no liability of the employer for compensation. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dated 10th November, 2006 in the case between Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2006 Though, the Respondent has served, nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences on record, it appears that the deceased, namely, Uttam Kumar was employed with the Appellant on 23rd November, 1999. He was reported complaints of cough, weakness, giddiness and swelling over face on 13th January, 2000 and he was taken for medical treatment. It was reported on 14th January, 2000 that there was no improvement and, thereafter, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Kapoli by the Medical Officer, where, he was admitted on the same day, but, he could not recover from his illness and died on 16th January, 2000 at 8:00 A.M. He died due to cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks, as per the Medical Certificate of cause of death, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this appeal. 6. The Appellant has examined three witnesses and the Respondent has also examined two witnesses. The documents exhibited before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar are Medical Certificate, Death Certificate and the Inquiry Report. 7. We have perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. 8. The question now arises is whether cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks is "peculiar to the employment". The documents exhibited before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar are Medical Certificate, Death Certificate and the Inquiry Report. 7. We have perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. 8. The question now arises is whether cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks is "peculiar to the employment". Section 3(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under: 3(2)- If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III, for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: Provided that if it is proved, (a) that a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this Sub-section for that employment; and (b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section: Provided further that if it is proved that a workman who having served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this Sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section. (emphasis supplied) 9. For imposing a liability upon the employer, it ought to have been proved that occupational disease suffered by the workman was peculiar to the employment. Looking to the facts of the present case, the aforesaid cause of death reveals that within 55 days of the employment, the occupational disease suffered by Late Uttam Kumar cannot be said to be peculiar to his employment. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. 10. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case between Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2004 dated 11th July, 2006 that if the workman dies a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear, of the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But, if the employment is contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease, but, also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. 11. In view of this judgment and looking to the facts of the present case, it appears that the claimant has failed to prove the casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment. 12. Learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that all the occupational disease referred in Schedule-III must have a casual connection with the employment, merely because the death has been caused due to the disease referred to in Schedule-III of the Act, 1923 will not make the employer liable, unless the occupational disease is peculiar to the employment. Moreover, such disease must have arisen out of in the course of employment. There is no material evidence to show that the workman was putting through a sudden stressful condition in the course of his duties, which brought on a cardiac arrest. There must be some evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased. It is required to establish that the death occurred during the course of the employment. Only because the death is taken place in the course of employment will not amount to accident, but, it must have arisen out of accident. There must be some evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased. It is required to establish that the death occurred during the course of the employment. Only because the death is taken place in the course of employment will not amount to accident, but, it must have arisen out of accident. In the facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, the death is due to cardio respiratory failure clue to Bilateral Pnemenitie and kocks. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2006 dated 10th November, 2006 reads as under: In a case of this nature to prove that accident had taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are: 1. stress and strain arising during the course of employment. 2. nature of employment 3. injury aggravated due to stress and strain 13. The deceased was doing a job of Mazdoor, as per Opposite Party witness No. 2. He was suffering from cough and cold. He died due to cardio respiratory failure due to Bilateral Pnemenitie and koche Entry No. 1 of Part-C of Schedule III of the Act, 1923 reads as under: Serial No. (1) Occupational diseases (2) Employment (3) Part C All work involving exposure to the risk concerned. 1.Pneumoconioses caused by sclerogenic mineral dust (silicosis, anthraoosilicosis, asbestosis) and silico-tuberculosis provided that silicosis is an essential factor in causing the resultant incapacity or death 14. In fact, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the deceased was suffering from a disease referred at Serial No. 1 Part C of Schedule III is incorrect. 15. It has also been held in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2006 dated 10th November, 2006, which reads as under: Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have Jurisdiction to grant damages, In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is now well-settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to am precedent would not be helpful as a little deviation from the fact of a decided case of an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question. (emphasis supplied) 16. Looking to the impugned judgment of the trial court, it appears that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar has come to the conclusion that the death took place during the course of employment, but, there is no evidence on record to show that it had a casual connection with the employment so as to fulfill the requirement of the terms "out of employment". Thus, the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is based upon no evidence and, therefore, it is perversed finding. In the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record. Thus, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Deoghar in the facts of the present case. 17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar, dated 24th August, 2005 in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 12 of 2002. As stated hereinabove, vide order dated 4th August, 2008, the Respondents were not allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant, we hereby permit the Appellant to withdraw the deposited amount.