!! 1 !! S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.683/1997 (Ground Water Department Vs. Smt. Somi & Ors.) Date of order :: 05.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS None present for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Panwar, for the respondents. By way of filing this misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the appellant-department is challenging the judgment and award dated 30th June, 1997 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh in W.C. Case No.3/1996, whereby, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.82,892 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 12th January, 1996 and Rs.1,000/- funeral expenses. According to the facts of the case, an employee of Ground Water Department Shri Meghraj Meena died while on duty when he was working on muster-roll and performing duties for drilling of hole on the well. On 19th November, 1995 the deceased with the driver of the vehicle Magan Lal and Cleaner Magan Singh went for hole blasting on the well of Heera. While working upon the wall of Heera, late Meghraj Meena fell down in the well !! 2 !! and received serious injuries. Thereafter, deceased Meghraj Meena was taken to the Chittorgarh hospital and in the hospital he become unconscious and during treatment in the Chittorgarh hospital, he died on 21st November, 1995. After death of late Shri Meghraj Meena, a claim petition was preferred by the respondent- legal representatives before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant-department filed written statement on 16th April, 1996. The appellant denied the averments and submitted that deceased was working as labour in the office of respondent department on muster roll and was performing drilling work, but he was not paid Rs.1500/- per month. Further, it is submitted by the respondent-department before the Commissioner that deceased workman was engaged on drilling machine as a labour. Learned Commissioner after perusing the entire pleadings and taking evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.82,892 alongwith 12% interest per annum thereon w.e.f. 12th January, !! 3 !! 1996. By way of filing this appeal respondent- department is challenging the validity of award passed by the Commissioner, but nobody is appearing on behalf of appellants. I have perused the grounds taken by the appellant-department in this appeal. The grounds taken by the appellant- department are based upon finding of fact. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration and according to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 appeal can be filed against the award, if any, substantial question of law involves. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is as follows:- “30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; !! 4 !! [(aa)an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b) unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: [Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the payable under the order appealed against.] !! 5 !! (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section.” Upon perusal of all the grounds taken in this appeal by the appellant-department, it appears that all grounds are based upon finding of fact. There is no ground with regard to involvement of any substantial question of law for which interference is requuired. In this view of the matter, no appeal can be entertained upon the finding of fact. Learned Commissioner has rightly arrived at with the finding that late Shri Meghraj Meena was workman and died on duty in the department. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this misc. appeal is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-