IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 25.2.2008. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.633/2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandra Yadav & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri R.P. Vijay, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant's name does not find place in the list of the employees which was submitted by the Employer along with the insurance policy. So far as the above objection is concerned a perusal of the impugned order goes to show that no such objection was raised by the appellant before the Commissioner as such no amount of evidence can be looked into for the facts which have been alleged and no objection has been raised in the pleading. In view of the above the aforesaid objection cannot be allowed to be raised in this appeal for the first time as the appeal is only maintainable on the substantial questions of law as provided in Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant was earning Rs.5,200/- p.m. from the Employer and as per the terms and conditions of the policy only such of the employee whose salary is Rs.4,000/- p.m. were covered by the terms of the policy. So far as the above objection is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation after having considered the evidence on record has given a finding that the wages of the claimant were Rs.4,000/- p.m. and was paid Rs.1200/- towards the messing in addition to his wage. In that view of the matter I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding given by the learned Commissioner. The appeal as well as the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS