ORDER : The two appellants by filing this appeal under Section 30 (I)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 have questioned the legality of the order/Award dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum- Employees Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 117/11(C) whereby and whereunder the appellants have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,92,400/- to the sole present respondent within two months from the date of the order with clauses and in case of default in payment of compensation within the stipulated period, they shall also be liable to pay compensation at the compounded interest of 14% per annum with alternative option. 2. Murlidhar Manjhi (hereinafter called ‘the deceased’) was in the employment of North Tisra Colliery as a Senior Fitter and on 16.06.2005 while he was performing his duty in the first shift at North Tisra Project at about 1:30 P.M., he suffered a sun stroke. Where after, he was shifted to Tisra Hospital, Seraidhela Dhanbad where he died. At the time of death, the said deceased was aged 53 years. It appears from the record that after the death of the deceased, his son Mihir Murmu was provided employment in his place but almost after three years of the death of the deceased, the present respondent-the widow of the deceased filed an application on 07.05.2008 claiming compensation amount of Rs.2,95,000/- alleging therein that the death was on account of accident arising out of and in course of employment. The said application for claim was filed with a condonation petition with prayer to condone the delay in filing the case and after notice to the present appellants, who were opposite parties in the court below, written statement was filed. After hearing the parties, the delay was condoned. 3. In the written statement filed at the instance of the present appellants in court below, it was admitted that deceased was an employee under the present appellants and on the fateful day at about 4:14 p.m., the deceased realized inconvenience and uneasiness where after he was immediately shifted to Tisra Hospital, Dhanbad but before reaching Central Hospital, Dhanbad, he died and after postmortem , the cause of death was found due to sun stroke/hot wind. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the deceased was working in the open cast and there was no option, except to work in the open field under the hot wind to be faced by him and other workers but it was not an accidental death and there was no injury caused to the deceased by way of any accident arising out of and in course of his employment. Hence, his claim was not covered under the provisions of W.C. Act. Subsequently, a supplementary written statement was filed by the Project Officer, North Tisra Colliery (the present appellant no.-2) stating therein that due to clerical mistake, a calculation chart for compensation was prepared in the name of the deceased Murlidhar Manjhi and on that basis in paragraph 4 and 5 of the original written statement, an amount of Rs. 2,92,400/- was admitted as compensation due in respect of the deceased. It is also stated in supplementary written statement that the postmortem report of the deceased reveals that some deep coloured liquid substance was found in the internal part of the body and his death was not due to sun stroke. 4. The court below after considering the evidences and pleadings available on record held that the workman died arising out of an accident in course of employment and the claim was not barred by any limitation. The court below relying upon the calculation chart submitted by the present appellant in the court below found the amount of Rs.2,92,400/- as amount of compensation with other conditions and allowed the compensation case as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta appearing for the appellants submitted that the court below committed a manifest error in arriving at the finding that the death was on account of the sun stroke and strain. It was also submitted that the court below without appreciating the evidence and legal position in right perspective passed the order impugned and merely because the death was due to sun-stroke and heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had occurred in course of employment. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that there is no scope for interference in the order impugned as the same is based on correct appreciation of the pleadings and evidences. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that there is no scope for interference in the order impugned as the same is based on correct appreciation of the pleadings and evidences. It was also submitted that earlier, the appellant had admitted in the written statement that the deceased died due to sun stroke but subsequently by filing a supplementary affidavit, the appellants tried to resile from their own pleading, which cannot be allowed. 7. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation raised several issues but learned counsel Mr. Mehta has mainly confined his argument on the issue no.1, which is as under:- “(1) Whether, death of the Workman Late Murlidhar Manjhi workman of O.P. No.1 in the open cast, at North Tisra Colliery took place, after 1:30 p.m. on 16.06.2005 due to sun-stroke, may be treated, under the law to be arising out of an accident and in course of employment.” Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has not questioned the issue of limitation or any other issue. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to workmen for compensation against injury/accident arising out of and in course of his employment. To attract the said provision, it is necessary to fulfill the following conditions:- (i) an injury/accident must be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident; and (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Director, ESI Corpn. Vs. Francis De Costa [ (1996) 6 SCC 1 ] while considering the decision of Lord Wright in Dover Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Isabella Craig (1939) 4 All ER 558 (HL) held as follows:- “Nothing could be simpler than the words ‘arising out of and in the course of the employment’. It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises ‘in the course’ of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises ‘out of the employment’. The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man’s service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment- that is, directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do- gives a claim to compensation, unless it also arises out of the employment. The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man’s service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment- that is, directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do- gives a claim to compensation, unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified.” Only because the death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident rather certain factors are there, which would have to be established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another ; (2007) 11 SCC 668 while considering a similar situation held the following three factors responsible to prove that accident has taken place:- (i) stress and strain arising during the course of employment, (ii) nature of employment, (iii) injury aggravated due to stress and strain. 8. So far as the above three factors are concerned, admittedly, the deceased was working in open cast mining area during summer season under the hot wind in the first shift and there was no equipment provided at the instance of the employer to control the high temperature of the summer season. The nature of employment was such that the workman had to work in an open cast under the scorching heat of summer season and the doctor has found the cause of death as sun stroke. So, obviously the stress and strain under which the workman was working was during the course of employment and the injury caused by the sun stroke was of such nature that the workman suffered the heart attack. This fact has not been denied by the appellants in their written statement. Hence, circumstances were there to establish that death was caused by reason of sun stroke or heart attack caused by stress and strain of work. The appellants in the court below had not brought on record any evidence in rebuttal that the said workman was suffering from any such ailment i.e. heart disease and because of any old ailment he had suffered the cardiac arrest. 9. I have gone through the order impugned and found that the court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the pleading of the parties and allowed the compensation. 9. I have gone through the order impugned and found that the court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the pleading of the parties and allowed the compensation. I am of the opinion that it is reasonable to conclude that the strain of the ordinary work done by the deceased in the open cast mining on a hot summer day in the first shift led to the necessary overstrain causing cardiac arrest in course of employment. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta appearing for the appellants has not pointed out any cogent reason to interfere in the order impugned. 10. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is, hereby, dismissed.