SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the employer is directed against the order dated 17 1 1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, bangalore Sub Divn. II, in no. WCA/cr II of 1979 80 on his file, awarding compensation of Rs, 9,800 to the workman. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the workman, he suffered injuries in the course of his employment as a result of which he was disabled to the extent of 75% and as such he claimed compensation. There was delay in instituting ihe application. The workman filed an affidavit and gave his evidence that he was prevented from applying for compensation in time because he was assured by the employer that the matter would be settled amicably. The commissioner appreciating the evidence on record condoned the delay and held that the workman was disabled to the extent of 75%. The workman was earning rs. 150 per month and in that view, the commissioner awarded compensation of rs. 9,800. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is presented by the employer. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants raised the following points before this Court for consideration :- (1) He submitted that the Commissioner was not justified in condoning the delay as there was no sufficient cause shown to condone the same. (2) He further submitted that the evidence on record did not establish that the workman was disabled to the extent of 75% (3) He also submitted that there was no evidence to show that he was disabled, and (1) Lastly he submitted that even assuming that there was 75% disability, rs. 9,800 could not be awarded as it was only in the case of total disability. Since the disability was confined to 75%, the workman's salary being Rs. 150 per month, the Commissioner ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 7,350 only and not rs. 9,800. ( 4 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the employee respondent in this appeal at the outset submitted that under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no appeal shall lie against any order of the commissioner, unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, as provided under the first proviso to S. 30 (1) of the Act. According to him, the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant did not involve any substantial question of law and as such the appeal was to be rejected without more. He also argued on merits supporting the judgment and order of the Commissioner. ( 5 ) THE first point therefore that arises for our consideration is: Whether the points raised before us can be said to involve substantial questions of law. What is substantial question of law is not defined in the Workmen's Compensation act. Similar expression, however, is used in the CPC, vide S. 100. The Supreme court of India explaining the words 'substantial question of law' in the case of chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. , v. Century spinning and Mfg. Co. , Ltd. , (1) has observed in para 6 of the judgment as follows :"6. We are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow, the one taken by the former High Court of Nagpur is too wide. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law". (Emphasis added ). It is needless for us to point out that the legislature would not waste its words. The proviso states, "provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal". If it were the intention of the Legislature that it is was enough if merely a question of law was involved an appeal shall lie, it should have stated so. The proviso states, "provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal". If it were the intention of the Legislature that it is was enough if merely a question of law was involved an appeal shall lie, it should have stated so. But the Legislature in its wisdom has used the expression unless a substantial question of law is involved and the Supreme court of India, as cited above has explained what a substantial question of law would mean. Considered in that perspective, it is obvious that none of the points raised before us can be described as raising any substantial question of law. Whether the delay should have been condoned or not is mainly a question of fact though it is true that while recording a finding that the cause is sufficient, an inference of law is raised. What is sufficient cause has been explained by the Supreme court of India several times. Even otherwise, we are of the considered view that the reason shown for not instituting the petition constitutes sufficient cause on the facts of the case. ( 6 ) WHETHER there was disability caused and to what extent is also a question of fact. The Commissioner has recorded his finding that there is disability and it is to the extent of seventy-five percent. Hence, there is no question of law much less a substantial question of law involved in this point. ( 7 ) LASTLY, it is true that the Commssioner has recorded a finding that the disability amounted to seventy-five percent but he has committed an arithmetical error in awarding Rs. 9800 which constitutes compensation for total disability. That has to be corrected since it is brought to our notice and seventy-five percent of that would be Rs. 7350. It is obvious that the Commissioner should have awarded rs. 7350 instead of Rs. 9800. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, we partly allow the appeal and modify the award of the commissioner by reducing the compensation awarded at Rs. 9800 to Rs. 7350. The Commissioner shall award the same to the legal representatives of the workman, from out of the amount deposited and return the rest of the amount to the legal representatives of the employer. No costs. --- *** --- .