JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1.This is an appeal u/s 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) which restricts interference only on a substantial question of law. 2. Respondent being an employee is entitled to the benefits under the Act. On 1. 3. 1966 at about 2.30 p. m., his left thumb was pressed by the agitator drive causing injury. He was treated in the E. S. I. Hospital where he complained about his left ear being affected. The Medical Board gave a report on 6.10.1969 that the left thumb has not been affected. However, there was no mention about the injury to the left ear resulting in defect in hearing. 3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal by its order dated 30.9.1974 held that partial deafness developed on account of the accident and accordingly allowed disablement benefit. Appeal was preferred by the appellant before the E. S. I. Court which by its order dated 14. 8.1978 remitted back the case to the Medical Board for fresh consideration. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order preferred M. A. No. 153 of 1978 in this Court. The order of remand was vacated by judgment dated 25.2.1981 and the E. S. I. Court was directed to consider the question of delay in preferring the appeal in that forum and the impact of the accident on the ear. 4. The period of. limitation for preferring an appeal is three months from the date of the order of the Medical Appeal Tribunal. Delayed appeal can, however, be entertained if the E. S. I. Court is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient reason for not presenting the application within the said period This is provided in Rule 20-8 of the Employees State Insurance ( General) Rules, 1950. 5. After remand the E. S. I. Court considered the materials on record and after hearing both the parties, held that there was no sufficient reason for accepting the appeal beyond the period of limitation, which is assailed in this appeal. 6. It is not in dispute that the appeal before the Employees' State Insurance Court was filed beyond the period prescribed in Rule 20-B. Mr. Deepak Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the finding of absence of sufficent reason is erroneous appreciation of the facts. Mr. 6. It is not in dispute that the appeal before the Employees' State Insurance Court was filed beyond the period prescribed in Rule 20-B. Mr. Deepak Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the finding of absence of sufficent reason is erroneous appreciation of the facts. Mr. Palit, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that while on facts the submission of Mr. Misra is erroneous, in law such a submission is not entertainable since question of sufficiency of reason on materials available on record is a pure question of fact. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Palit. 7. In spite of the fact that the appeal was admitted, the respondent, who had no opportunity of being heard at the time of admission is free to agitate that no substantial question of law arises in this case at the time of hearing. 8. On my finding that the conclusion of the E. S I. Court on remand that there was no sufficient reason to entertain the appeal before it, is a question of fact, there is no scope for me to interfere with the same in exercise of the appellate power u/s 82 of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed