1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2188 OF 2008 Mansha Seth @ Munshafali Shaukat ali Gauri........Appellant versus Smt. Maina Jokhan Yadhav & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Rajeevn pande i/b Jalan Legal Ass. adv. for the Appellant Mr. T.J. Mendon adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 6th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Commissisoner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Thane awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,51,808/- on account of accidental death. 2. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for an appeal only when a substantial question of law emerges for consideration. Two fold submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellant: (1) that the act has no application as the appellant has engaged only four workmen in the establishment and (2) that the respondents have failed to establish that the deceased was an employee of the present appellant. In regard to the first submission the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly admitted that the said question was 2 not raised before the trial court. If that be the position the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal. In regard to the next submission, the perusal of the judgment of the court below reveals that at the time of fetal accident statements of witnesses were recorded and those statements were placed on record of the trial court. The inspector who had recorded the statement was also examined. Perusal of the statement clearly indicates that the deceased was in the employment of the present appellant. In the absence of any doumentary evidence the issue has to be answered on preponderance of probabilities in the light of the credibility of the oral evidence led before the trial court. Considering the evidence on record a finding of fact has been arrived at that the deceased was working in the estalishment of the present appellant and hence compensation has been awarded. 3. Perused the judgment. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration. There being no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)