IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 346 OF 2007 Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. Electricity Distribution Division Haridwar District Haridwar …. Appellant. Vs. 1. Smt. Iqbal Bano W/o Zahid Hasan R/o Mohalla Chaklan Street Ramlila Ground Jwalapur Haridwar. 2. Miss Naseema D/o Zahid Hasan 3. Mahraj S/o Zahid Hasan, 4. Shahnawaj S/o Zahid Hasan, 5. Master Shadab S/o Zahid Hasan, 6. Shama Praveen D/o Zahid Hasan, 7 Parvez S/o Zahid Hasan, 8. Altaf S/o Zahid Hasan, All R/o Mohalla Chaklan Street Ramlila Ground Jwalapur Haridwar …. Respondents. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Narendra Miglani, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: April 01, 2008. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-2-2007, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar, in WCA No. 8 of 2004, Smt. Iqbal Bano and others vs. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd, whereby the claimants/respondents were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,30,324-58 P. 2- The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal, are that the petitioners/respondents filed a petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar for compensation in lieu of death of Mahtab Ali in an accident. According to the petitioners deceased Mahtab Ali was employed as a labourer in the Electricity Distribution Division, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Haridwar and he has died in an accident while discharging his duties. The deceased was getting Rs. 3000/- per month as salary and he was 21 years of age at the time of his death. 3- The Uttaranchal Power Corporation filed objection and denied the allegations of the petitioners. According to it the deceased was not in the employment of the Corporation. 4. The Tribunal framed relevant issues in the petition. 5- The claimants examined Smt. Iqbal Bano and also produced documentary evidence. Opposite Party also examined Brij Mohan Kaushik, Junior Engineer in support of its case. 6- The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner after considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that deceased workman was in the employment of Uttaranchal Power Corporation and he died in an accident while discharging his duties. The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 3,30,324-58 P. as compensation against the Corporation. 6- Feeling aggrieved the Power Corporation has preferred this appeal. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- The ground of challenge in this appeal on behalf of the appellant is that the deceased in this case was not a workman in the employment of the Uttaranchal Power Corporation and there was no relationship of master and servant between him and the Power Corporation, therefore, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner could not have awarded compensation in the matter. 9- Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner, I do not find any force in this appeal. The claimant Smt. Iqbal Bano in her statement on oath has stated that the deceased had gone to the place of accident on the complaint of some consumer of electricity and he had died due to electric shock while discharging his duties. Against this, although, D.W.1. Sri Brij Mohan Kaushik, Junior Engineer, has denied the employment of the deceased in the Power Corporation, but in the investigation report submitted by Sri Anupam Kumar Electricity Inspector dated 12.9.2003, it has been clearly mentioned that the death has occurred while discharging duty for the Power Corporation. The learned Commissioner has recorded categorical finding on this point and I do not find any ground to disturb the finding of fact. 10- So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Commissioner has concluded that either party has not filed salary certificate of the deceased workman, therefore, the compensation was calculated at a monthly salary of Rs. 2,966-41P., as has been provided under Notification No. 214 dated 18.1.1992. The finding of the learned Commissioner on the point of quantum of compensation also does not require interference. 11- In view of above discussion, I find that the finding of fact recorded by learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner needs no interference. Further, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal to be answered by this Court, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP