JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Employer is the Appellant in this appeal u/s 30(1), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') where the appeal is entertainable on substantial question of law only. 2. Mr. S.N. Satpathy, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Respondent did not meet with the accident on the last date of his service which was in course of employment. On the question of computation of compensation, Mr. Satpathy submitted that on account of mere fall and remaining unconscious, inference of loss of vision is unreasonable. 3. Whether workman was on duty is a question of fact. On the facts proved in this case, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that he was on duty. Therefore, the finding cannot be interfered with in this appeal. 4. The Act does not provide for compensation depending on the length of service, even on the last day of his service if the workman is injured as a result of accident in course of duty he is entitled to the compensation as provided under the statute. 5. Whether the loss of vision was on account of fall is a pure question of fact. 6. In the result, the appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed