DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The respondent was employed as a Labourer by the appellant for loading and unloading Iron Goods.
While iron billets were being weighed one such billet slipped and fell on his left hand resulting in injuries. The respondent took treatment from the hospital. After obtaining a certificate showing that the injury resulted 10% permanent partial disability, an application was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for compensation.
3. The application was resisted and it was denied that the respondent was employed as a l abourer or he had sustained any injury during the course of employment.
4. On the basis of pleadings the Commissioner framed issues.
After recording the evidence the Commissioner reached the conclusion that the respondent was employed as Labourer and he suffered the injury during the course of employment. Consequently compensation amounting to Rs. 1,879 was awarded. Aggrieved by this the present appeal was filed.
5. At the outset it may be pointed out that under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act the appeal lies only if a substantial question ofi law is involved. In the present case no such question requires determination.!, Consequently the appeal is incompetent. I asked the learned Representative fori the appellant to show how a substantial question of law was involved so as tea sustain the appeal. His reply was that the respondent was not employed by the appellant and, therefore, he was not a workman so as to be entitled to the compensation. It is not understood how this is purely a question of law. In fact it is a question of fact as to whether the respondent was employed by the appellant to work for him or not. Evidence was tendered by both the parties and the leamed Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent was employed to work for the appellant. It is not disputed that the business for which the respondent was said to have been employed was the business of the appellant. Thus the question whether the respondent was emplox e J or not is essentially a question of fact and the findings having been given no appeal lies against that finding. It has not been shown that there was absolutely no evidence to sustain the finding. It was, however, pleaded that the employment was of a casual nature. Even this does not help the appellant as to exclude a person from the definition of workman, not only the employment be of casual nature but it should not be connected with the purpose of employer's trade or business. The second condition is absent. Consequently the respondent was a workmen within the definition of the term and he was entitled to compensation for the injury sustained during the course of employment.
6. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. Stay stands discharged. Appeal dismissed.