JUDGMENT : S.D. Agarwala, J.—This is a First Appeal From Order filed u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 3. An accident took place on 15th July, 1983, in which Moti Chand received an electric shock and died. Smt. Sushila Devi, the widow of Moti Chand, and the minor son of Moti Chand filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Gorakhpur. In the claim petition, it was categorically stated that Moti Chand had died because of an electric shock while he was in the employment of M/s Aluminium Factory, Kasia Road, Deoria. 4. Evidence was led before the Workmen's Compensation Comissioner. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. The first was Satya Narain Prasad, who was a clerk in the electricity department. P.W. 2 is Smt. Sushila Devi, the widow of the deceased. P.W. 3 is Rama Kant Jaiswal, father-in-law of the deceased Moti Chand, and P.W. 4, Brij Bahadur Singh, is a clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer. All the claimants' witnesses have categorically stated that Moti Chand died in the premises of the Aluminium Factory at Kasia Road, Deoria, and that he was in the employment of the factory. 5. The claim was resisted by the appellant Bishambhar Lai Arora, who is the Proprietor of the factory at Kasia Road, Deoria, primarily on the ground that, actually, Moti Chand was not in his employment and that, in fact, the death did not take place in the premises where the factory is situate. Practically, no evidence was led by the appellant. 6. The Claims Commissioner, after examining the evidence on the record, has categorically recorded the findings of facts that Moti Chand died in the premises of the Aluminium Factory and that his death took place in the course of employment in the factory. 7. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, in fact, the death did not take place in the premises of the Aluminium Factory, but has taken place else where and, as such, the claim could not have been decreed against the appellant. 8. As I have" already indicated above, the witnesses on behalf of the claimants have categorically stated that the death did take place in the premises of the Aluminium Factory. 8. As I have" already indicated above, the witnesses on behalf of the claimants have categorically stated that the death did take place in the premises of the Aluminium Factory. The Claims Commissioner has believed the said witnesses and has recorded a categorical finding that the death did take place in the factory premises. In my opinion, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not substantiated and I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Claims Commissioner. 9. In any case, an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable only if a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The question whether the death took place in the premises of the Aluminium Factory or not is only a question of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order which has been challenged in the present appeal. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. I further direct that the sum of Rs. 22,500/- deposited by the appellant before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall be paid to the respondents forthwith. 11. A copy of this judgment may be given to the learned Counsel on payment of usual charges within a week.