HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (0.) No.1548 of 2008 Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 Present: Shri P. Sam Koshy, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.P.Kale, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Ratan Pusty and Shri P.C.Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17‘“ day of February, 2009) Heard on admission. (2) While arguing on admission of this appeal, the sole question of law urged by Shri P. Sam Koshy, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (henceforth ‘the Commissioner’) erred in holding that the deceased was under employment of the appellant and died due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant. (3) Having heard Shri P. Sam Koshy, learned counsel for the appellant, l have perused the record. ln my considered opinion, the finding recorded by the Commissioner fastening liability to pay Appellant South East Central Railway, through: Non-Applicant No.2 General Manager, S.E.C. Rly‘ Head Quarter, Bilaspur (C.G.) versus Respondents 1. Bhagirathi, S/o Mitthu Miri, aged about Claimant 50 years, 2. Smt. Budhwara Bai Miri, W/o Bhagirathi Satnami, aged about 45 years All residents of Village Aramsahi, Waya — Jayramnagar, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent 3. Mls Proprietor, Mls Universal and Non-Applicant No.1 Engineering Company Ltd. 214, 215, Raildoli, Gondiya (Maharastra) § Q 1 compensation on the appellant is a we“ reasoned finding and is ii impeccable. In my considered opinion, the sole substantial question of law, as urged by the appellant, is, therefore, not involved in this appeal. i Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as not involving any substantial question of law. I i std/— Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge