ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. This appeal is against the award of compensation in W.C. Case No.6/2009 for the death of Banshi Beldar (Miner Loader), who was in employment of appellant-Company. 2. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellants on the point of admission in terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to see if the appeal raises any substantial question of law for admission. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellants that the deceased was an employee of the appellant-Company, and it is also not disputed that on 11.03.2005, he was on duty in second shift when he got ill and thereafter was shifted to Tila Tand Hospital where he died. 4. The main contention raised is that as per post-mortem examination report, the death was natural as a result of spontaneous intra cerebral hemorrhage. It is argued that there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was past medical history of illness and unless the deceased had suffered some injury during course of employment, death will not come within the meaning of Section 3(i) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1925. 5. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants, Manotosh Kundu (M.W. 1), Devendra Nath Chatterjee (M.W. 2) and Laldeo Prasad Anal (M.W. 3) and all have consistently stated that no accident took place and the death was natural, when he fell down and on semiconscious, he was given drinking water and shifted to hospital where he was declared dead. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants on the point of admission, I do not find that the substantial question of law arises for admission of the instant appeal. It is not in dispute that the deceased was an employee and that he died on duty during mining operation. Even if it is assumed that there was no accident, still natural death occurring during course of employment because of the stress and strain suffered in the mining operation, cannot be ruled out. The very fact that there was no medical history of illness, shows that the mining operation in which the deceased was employed, took a toll on his health and resulted in his death. 7. What Section 3(1) of the Act of 1923 requires, is that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. The very fact that there was no medical history of illness, shows that the mining operation in which the deceased was employed, took a toll on his health and resulted in his death. 7. What Section 3(1) of the Act of 1923 requires, is that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. Key words of Section are “arising out of and in the course of employment”. If the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the cause resulting into death, or if the death was not only due to the disease but also coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be statutorily liable to pay the compensation. 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 AIR (SCW) 1688, “14. There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpns. case (supra) in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of section 3 of the Act. The principles are: (1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case.” 9. In the present case, the proximate cause of death was mining operation and was during the course of employment and therefore, the mining company has been rightly held to be liable to pay the compensation amount. Under the circumstance, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.