JUDGMENT M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This first appeal from order is directed against the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region. The brief facts are that the applicant-respondent Sri Ram Darshan preferred a claim before the said authority on the ground that he had suffered persona injury arising out of and in the course of his employment inasmuch as he had lost his eye sight in one of his eyes. The injury had been caused on 7th July, 1972 when he was directed to cleanse the cylinder. During the course of doing the said job, some rusty iron waste fell into one of his eyes and ultimately due to the said cause, he lost sight of the said eye. He underwent treatment at the hands i of the mill doctor as well as at the hands of other medical men but the eye sight could not be saved and, therefore, the applicant-opposite party claimed a sum of Rs. 9,800/- as compensation for the said personal injury. The opposite party-appellant, namely, the employer, contested the claim and denied that the injury was caused in the course of employment The contention was that it was no part of the duty either of Shyam Lal or of the applicant to cleanse the cylinder, and, therefore, the employer was not liable for the injury, if any. Further, it was denied that any injury was caused to the applicant in the manner as alleged by him. The Compensation Officer after framing the necessary issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence tried the case and decided the same in favour of the applicant and awarded him a sum of Rs. 3020.00 as compensation and a sum of Rs. 100/- as cost of the case. The employer has now come up in the appeal and in support thereof I have heard learned counsel. The same contention has again been pressed, namely, that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of workman's employment. In my opinion, this contention is not correct. It is obvious that there was no specific allotment of duties to the applicant. At least none has been brought to my notice. It has been admitted that Shyam Lal was superior to the applicant who was working as la helper to Shyam Lal. In my opinion, this contention is not correct. It is obvious that there was no specific allotment of duties to the applicant. At least none has been brought to my notice. It has been admitted that Shyam Lal was superior to the applicant who was working as la helper to Shyam Lal. Shyam Lal has clearly admitted that he gave the direction to the applicant to cleanse the cylinder. In my opinion, whatever might be the internal arrangement in the mills regarding the respective duties of their officials, if Shyam Lal as the superior directed the applicant to cleanse the cylinder belonging to the factory, then the latter was bound to carry out the order. It is not the employer's case that the machinery in question did not belong to it. If an inferior hand is directed by his superior to cleanse or repair a machine of the mills, then, in my opinion, it is not a good defence on the part of the employer to say that the superior had no authorisation to give the necessary direction to the inferior hand. Moreover, in my opinion, the employer has not adduced the necessary evidence which would satisfactorily establish that Shyam Lal was not authorised to give the necessary direction which he gave to the applicant to cleanse the cylinder. If the employer wanted to substantiate the said plea, then the officer responsible for the allotment of the work should have entered the witness box and should have allowed himself to be subjected to cross-examination but this has not been done. Neither the mill manager has been examined nor the Chief-Engineer of the mill. In this situation, the Compensation Officer was justified in negativing such a plea on the part of the employer. 2. The amount of compensation which has been awarded is based on the statutory formula and Sri Awasthi has not been able to question the correctness of the application of the said formula. It has to be remembered that the jurisdiction of this court as a court of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a limited one. I can only interfere when there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal, as laid down in the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act. It has to be remembered that the jurisdiction of this court as a court of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a limited one. I can only interfere when there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal, as laid down in the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.