ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The legal proceeding had been moved by filing a claim petition for grant of compensation under Section 3/4 and 22 read with Rule 20 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on account of death of workman-Hiralal Hari. 3. As per the pleading and evidence laid by the parties before the Labour Court, it is evident that the dead body of Late Hiralal Hari had been found in a sump on 27.07.2008 at about 9 AM. The cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. 4. Late Hiralal Hari was a permanent employee of B.C.C.L. The sump in question is within the premises of South Balihari Colliery, Kusunda, Dhanbad, which was working place of the workman. Thus, there is admitted position that death had been taken place within the premises, which is under the control of employer. 5. The manner of falling into the sump is neither known to anybody nor any evidence laid by any of the parties to that effect. Thus there is no evidence on the record regarding the manner of falling into the sump. 6. In such scenario, the Labour Court had proceeded on presumption that the onus lies upon the concerned claimant to prove that the death is accidental and in course of employment. 7. In view of above background, substantial question of law had been framed by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2018 which is as under: “Whether onus was upon the company, as accident has taken place within premises or upon claimant” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while canvassing this point regarding the issue of onus, has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Niwas Gupta vs. Bindu Singh & Ors. in F.A.O. No.348 of 2011 and C.M. Appeal No.14735/2011 vide judgment dated 12.04.2017. For better appreciation, para-30.4 of the said judgment is quoted hereinunder. 30.4 if the employee could not and did not reasonably anticipate that the unforeseen incident (murder) would happen to him, it is an “accident”. The work “accident” excludes the idea of willful and intentional act but the phrase would include an accidental happening so far as the employee was concerned. 9. 30.4 if the employee could not and did not reasonably anticipate that the unforeseen incident (murder) would happen to him, it is an “accident”. The work “accident” excludes the idea of willful and intentional act but the phrase would include an accidental happening so far as the employee was concerned. 9. Relying upon the above judgment, it has been submitted that onus lies upon the employer as the accident had been taken place within the premises, which is under total control of the employer. Employer has failed to discharge the onus, which lies upon him and as such, inference should have been drawn in favour of workmen/claimant. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the company has opposed the prayer and submitted that the death must be accidental and further there must be a casual connection with the employment. Whether death was accidental or not has not been proved and further the sump was not the place of the employment as his nature of work was not related with sump. 11. After hearing both the counsels and in view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that the death has occurred within the working premises, which is totally under control of the employer and in absence of any evidence regarding reason of falling into the sump, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the workman and accordingly it has to be presumed that death is accidental. As the death is within the working premises, the legal presumption is that the death is in course of employment. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Labour Court had proceeded on wrong presumption that onus lies upon the claimant and as such since claimant had failed to discharge the onus by proving accidental death having relation with the employment. 13. In view of the above discussion, Award dated 05.11.2014 passed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jumnani, P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad in connection with W.C. Case No.11 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal to take afresh decision in accordance with law. 14. The Tribunal is directed to re-hear the parties and pass afresh order in accordance with law. The matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal to take afresh decision in accordance with law. 14. The Tribunal is directed to re-hear the parties and pass afresh order in accordance with law. However, liberty is resersed with the Tribunal, if he feels, further evidence has to be taken, this is upon the Tribunal to take a decision and it is up to the Tribunal to take evidence or not. 15. It is expected that Tribunal should decide the issue within six months from the date of production of copy of this order. 16. With above observation and direction, the present appeal is hereby allowed.