Application was filed before the Authority under Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Udhampur (for short ALC ) by the respondents-claimants. In the claim petition, it was pleaded that deceased Roshan Lal was employed as driver by Shri Rakesh Kumar- respondent no. 2 and was given charge of truck bearing Registration No. JK02B-9517. It was pleaded that on 20th September, 2003 at about 9:30 P.M. the dead body of Shri Roshan Lal was recovered from the driving cabin of truck. The truck was being driven by the deceased from Delhi to Jammu and the vehicle was loaded with fencing wire for the Army Camp stationed at Nagrota Jammu. It was also pleaded that deceased died due to tiredness as he had pressure of his employers and the Army to deliver the goods quickly. The deceased Roshan Lal drove the truck from Gouhati to Delhi, which caused extra burden on him. It was specifically pleaded that Roshan Lal died due to tiredness and stress of work and the driving of heavy vehicles sometimes causes death because extra physical energy is required to control the said vehicle. Case FIR No. 20 dated 20.09.2003 was registered. The Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the death was uncertain. The Forensic Science Laboratory in its report also stated that the death of the Roshan Lal is uncertain. In the claim petition, notice was issued. The employer did not file objections and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him. Appellant filed objections. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the ALC passed award on 30th May, 2007 in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants and directed for payment of amount of Rs. 3,94,120/-in favour of the claimants, in terms of Section 4 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 read with schedule IV of the said Act. The appellant was directed to indemnify the employer-Rakesh Kumar as there was contract between the owner and the Insurance Company. The appellant was directed to deposit the award amount within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award. The appellant is aggrieved of the aforementioned award of the ALC and has challenged the same in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence available to show that the death of Shri Roshan Lal was caused due to stress of his job. The appellant is aggrieved of the aforementioned award of the ALC and has challenged the same in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence available to show that the death of Shri Roshan Lal was caused due to stress of his job. Learned counsel referred to statement of one Madan Lal and submitted that Madan Lal has deposed in his statement that the deceased Roshan Lal had complained of chest pain prior to his death. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 2830 and then 2009(13) SCC 405 and prayed for allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Shri Roashan Lal died because of strain and stress of his job and the accident arose during the course of his employment. Learned counsel also relied upon the case reported in AIR 2007 (11) SCC 668 . Learned counsel submitted that not only in pleadings in the claim petition but even in evidence lead in support thereof it has been stated that Roshan Lal died in the course of his employment because of job strain and stress. Learned counsel submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. It is not in dispute that the deceased Roshan Lal was in the employment of Rakesh Kumar who was respondent no. 2 in the claim petition. It is admitted that there is specific pleading in the claim petition Roshan Lal died due to the tiredness and pressure exerted on him while performing his duties. It has been specifically pleaded in the claim petition that while driving truck from Gohati to Delhi and then to Jammu, the deceased Roshan Lal had suffered tiredness and died because of stress of the work. Though the material placed on record shows that the death is uncertain, but the evidence which has been lead in support of the claim petition does show that Shri Roshan Lal died due to huge stress and strain of his job. Madan Lal, witness of the claimants has deposed that deceased was his friend and further deposed that whenever a driver drives his vehicle continuously for more than four days, he would suffer physical stress and also suffer from strain of job. Madan Lal, witness of the claimants has deposed that deceased was his friend and further deposed that whenever a driver drives his vehicle continuously for more than four days, he would suffer physical stress and also suffer from strain of job. He has also deposed that before reaching to Jammu deceased had driven the vehicle from Gohati to Dehli. The said witness further deposed that he is also a driver and has driven the vehicle from Gohati to Dehli and the road from Gohati to Delhi is very rough and drivers usually suffer tiredness. He has further deposed that every driver, who is physically fit, suffer physical tiredness whenever he drives his vehicle more than 2500 kilometers. The facts as they have unveiled do show that deceased Roshan Lal was in the employment of respondent no. 2 in the claim petition. The pleadings as also evidence on record further show that death of Roshan Lal was job related and because of the job stress he suffered terrestrial exit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti held that deceased though died because of heart attack, but it was not pleaded in the claim petition nor was it proved in the course of enquiry before the authority, that heart attack was attributed to his employment. It was also not shown that he suffered heart attack because of stress or strain. It was ruled that commissioner allowed the claim even without proof of relevant facts necessary for determining the liability. In the present case, as already stated, the relevant facts are not pleaded but are proved also. In the Judgment of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath which supports the respondents, it was stated that for fastening liability, there should be some causal connection between death of workman and his employment and if an employee dies natural death because of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as result of wear and tear of employment, no liability would be fixed upon employer and it was also held that where employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if death was not only due to the disease and death is said to arose out of the employment, the employer would be liable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the death of Sh. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the death of Sh. Roshan Lal arose in the employment of his employer and it arose because of stress and strain of the job. In Jyothi Ademma s case it was proved that the deceased was suffering from chest pain and was previously treated for such disease. The Court had noted that deceased was only to switch on or off and, therefore, doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any job stress or strain. In the facts, narration whereof is given in this judgment, Shri Roshan Lal died because of the stress or strain of the job. For the reasons stated above there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and same is dismissed along with connected CMA(s).