1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2286/2007 M/s Unichem Oxide v. Kailash Chandra Purbia Date of Judgment :: 4th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. .... To challenge validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 15.6.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Udaipur, this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1923”) is preferred. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation erred while determining compensation by treating pay of the claimant as Rs.44/- per day instead of Rs.40/- per day. It is further contended that the Commissioner also committed an error by treating the age of claimant as 20 years instead of 21 years. I have examined the order impugned. The findings given by learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence available 2 on record. An appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 can be maintained, if that involves a substantial question of law. No re-appreciation of evidence is permissible by appellate court under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. In the instant matter no substantial question of law is involved. Thus, the appeal deserves to be rejected, hence, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.