JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent is widow of Radhey Shyam. the employee of the Railway who died in accident on 26-10-79 while on duty and employment of the Railway. 2. The Compensation of Rs. 24,000/-has been allowed to her although the claim was for Rs. 30,000/-. 3. The order was passed on 12-11-81 and the Railway then moved for an application for setting aside the order on the ground that no service was effected on the Railway. This application was dismissed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 27-8-73. 4. Mr. Bapna is justified in his submission that the for citizens and all litigants to dispute is alike and the Railway was entitled for an opportunity to contest the case. 5. According to the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 27-8-83 he was of the opinion that during the arguments the counsel for the Railway did not assert that signatures on the receipt of the notice by Registered post are not of any of Railway Employee. The exact finding is as under:- " cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ ds odhy us ;g iz'u ugha mBk;k fd okilh jlhnksa ij tks gLrk{kj gS os mlds fdlh deZpkjh ds ugha gSaA " 6. In my opinion this clinches the issue, if genuineness of the signature of the Railway Employee representing the appellate was not challenged during the arguments, there is no substantial question of law which requires to be decided by this court in appeal under Section 39 of the Workman compensation Act, 1923. 7. Thus there was sufficient service and the compensation allowed cannot be challenged now. 8. Moreover the present one is a case of social welfare legislation where the employee died. In my opinion in such case when the accident happened in 1979, it would be traversity of justice and mockery of social justice if the poor widow is dragged on for 3rd inning now even for meagre compensation. 9. Consquently the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******