JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellantclaimaint claiming the following relief: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted, the judgment dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jalore may kindly be order be quashed and set aside with the cost and awarded the claim as pleaded. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the appellant-claimants." 2. The accident in question had happened when the appellant's son Ridmal was working as labourer on 05.08.2000 in the house of respondent, and at about 7:30 AM, while doing 'Tarai', his leg slipped and he fell down, which resulted into his death. 3. The only substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is whether under (the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923), Section 2(1)(n) Schedule II Clause (viii) (a) (of the Workmen's Compensation Act), the appellant shall be entitled for any compensation on account of the deceased's engagement and working as a labourer. 4. It is an admitted position of law that such labourer would be entitled only if the height of the house is more than 12 feet. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that since the issue was not framed regarding the height of the building under construction, therefore, the requisite evidence could not be placed on record. 6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents even in the second round. 7. This Court takes note of the fact that it is on record that the building in question was having the height of 8 feet. It is also clear that no question has been put to any of the witnesses in examination or cross examination as to whether the building was more than 6 - 7 feet of height. The foregone conclusion is that the building was below 12 feet, and thus, the provisions of Section 2(1)(n) Schedule II Clause (viii) (a) clearly excludes the present appellant from the zone of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present misc. appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.