JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.12.2017 passed in W.C. Case No. 11/2016 by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi whereby the Insurance Company namely IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited has been directed to make payment of compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 6,62,690.00/- within 60 days from the date of award to the claimants namely: (1) Raimu Bibi W/o Abul Kalam (2) Abul Kalam S/o late Riyasat Ansari (3) Sakina Khatoon D/o Abul Kalam (4) Rajina Khatoon D/o Abul Kalam 2. Claimant Nos. 3 and 4 being minor have been represented through their mother and natural guardian. It was directed to make the said payment within 60 days from the date of order to the claimants and in case of failure in payment of the same, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay additional interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Rabina Parween was engaged as unskilled labour (Reza) by the Contractor (respondent No. 5) and after working hour on 12.03.2016 while she was taking rest in the staff quarter provided by respondent no. 5 in the same complex, because of sudden thunderstorm and heavy rain, the side wall of the staff quarter fell down upon Rabina Parween causing her serious grievous injuries and due to impact of the accident, she died on the spot. The post-mortem was conducted by the Forensic Department of the RIMS, Ranchi and a report was instituted at Dhurwa Police Station as UD Case (Unnatural Death) Case No. 07/2016 on 13.03.2016 in which after thorough enquiry/investigation, the police has submitted final form. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the deceased died while taking rest and not at the time of work, as such, the deceased was not covered under the insurance scheme and Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability. Learned counsel for the appellant has buttressed his argument by stating that the policy of the insurance was with respect to construction work and not for the employees taking rest in the staff quarter. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has buttressed his argument by stating that the policy of the insurance was with respect to construction work and not for the employees taking rest in the staff quarter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that in view of section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the personal injury caused to the employee by accident arising out of and in course of his employment is covered under the insurance policy. To buttress his argument, he has produced photocopy of Exhibit-3, which is the Insurance Policy, which shows nature of work i.e. construction of New Jharkhand High Court Building at Dhurwa, Ranchi and the place of employment is New Jharkhand High Court Complex at Dhurwa, Ranchi, Pin Code-834004. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has further submitted that the insurance was with regard to the place of employment and the deceased Rabina Parween died in the staff quarter meant for the staff at the complex itself which was insured before the appellant, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for death of Rabina Parween. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has placed reliance upon the case of Daya Kishan Joshi and Another vs. Dynemech Systems (P) Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 642 , Paras 6,7, 8 and 10 which are profitably quoted hereunder: “6. Undisputedly the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee arises only if the employee has suffered in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) of the Act deals with the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee in case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) reads thus: “3. Employer's liability for compensation - (1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.” 7. The amount of compensation where the death resulted from the injury shall be quantified in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(1)(a) reads thus: “4. The amount of compensation where the death resulted from the injury shall be quantified in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(1)(a) reads thus: “4. Amount of compensation - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) where death results from the injury : an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor. (b) an amount of one lakh and twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more.” 8. The words "arising out of" and "in the course of employment" are in fact two different phrases and have been understood as such. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of employment, the claim shall succeed unless, of course, the workman had exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. The phrase "in the course of employment" suggests that the injury must be caused during the currency of employment, whereas the expression "out of employment" conveys the idea that there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury caused to the workman as a result of the accident. Prima facie, while deciding the issue on hand, there is no material on record to show that the deceased workman had exposed himself to added peril by his own imprudent act. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the question as to when an employment begins and when it ceases, depends upon the facts of each case. There is a notional extension at both entry and exit by time and space. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he has not reached or has left employer’s premises. In India, the courts have recognized the principle of notional extension of time and space for over 60-70 years while determining whether the injury has been caused out of or in the course of the employment of the workman. In India, the courts have recognized the principle of notional extension of time and space for over 60-70 years while determining whether the injury has been caused out of or in the course of the employment of the workman. The Courts have held consistently that the employment does not necessarily end, when the tool down signal is given and when the workman actually leaves his place of work.” Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has thus submitted that impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity nor any substantial question of law is made out so as to admit the miscellaneous appeal, as such, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that though the compensation amount has been deposited but the same has not been disbursed to the claimants for which he has filed I.A. No. 3728/2019 to modify the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials brought on record including the judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Admitted fact of the case is that Rabina Parween was engaged as paid unskilled labourer by the contractor respondent no. 5 and she was provided staff quarter, where she died at the spot in the night on 12.03.2016 because of sudden thunderstorm and heavy rain resulting into fall of the wall of staff quarter causing injuries. The death has been proved by bringing on record the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-4. From perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that such employees are covered under section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and the same has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi (supra) which is reproduced here (Para 6 & 10): “6. Undisputedly the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee arises only if the employee has suffered in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) of the Act deals with the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee in case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) reads thus: “3. Section 3(1) of the Act deals with the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee in case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) reads thus: “3. Employer's liability for compensation - (1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.” 10. There cannot be any dispute that the question as to when an employment begins and when it ceases, depends upon the facts of each case. There is a notional extension at both entry and exit by time and space. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he has not reached or has left employer’s premises. In India, the courts have recognized the principle of notional extension of time and space for over 60-70 years while determining whether the injury has been caused out of or in the course of the employment of the workman. The Courts have held consistently that the employment does not necessarily end, when the tool down signal is given and when the workman actually leaves his place of work.” Apart from this, this Court has also perused photocopy of Exhibit-3 i.e. the insurance policy as admitted by all the parties, which says about the business, place of employment, construction of New Jharkhand High Court Building at Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834004, additional clauses/endorsements/other detail/if any/ nature of work/construction of Jharkhand High Court Building (complex) at Dhurwa, Ranchi. Considering such document which makes it clear that even the staff quarter of the deceased was under the additional clause of coverage under the insurance policy and the same is also admitted by the contractor, who has admitted that staff quarter was within the complex where the employees were working as they have to work in shift. Apart from this, no evidence has been adduced, so as to bring the case out of the coverage policy. 7. Apart from this, the Court has perused the entire materials and has not found any substantial question of law to admit this appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. I.A. No. 3728/2019 preferred by the claimants is being taken and heard. 7. Apart from this, the Court has perused the entire materials and has not found any substantial question of law to admit this appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. I.A. No. 3728/2019 preferred by the claimants is being taken and heard. Since the appeal has already been dismissed, I.A. No. 3728 of 2019 for vacating stay has become infructuous; accordingly the same is hereby disposed of. The awarded amount which has been deposited before the Labour Court, Ranchi is directed to be released in favour of the claimants after due notice and proper verification. The Insurance Company is directed to discharge the entire liability as awarded by the learned Labour Court, Ranchi.