This appeal under section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter 'the Act', has been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Gauhati, its Regional Director and the Inspector against the order dated 18.2.84 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Gauhati holding that the number of persons employed by the respondent No. 1 was less than 10 and, as such, it did not fall within the definition of 'Establishment' given under Government Notification No. GLR. 385/74/56 dated 22. 7. 75. Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the Employees' Insurance Court is not correct. It has been arrived at without considering the evidence on record and, as such, the said finding cannot be sustained. I have considered the submission. I have also gone through the order of the Employees' Insurance Court. I find that the Court considered the evidence of the Corporation as well as the evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1, the owner of the establishment. On consideration of the evidence it arrived at a finding that the persons employed in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 were less than 10 and, as such, it was not an establishment as defined in the government notification referred to above. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the aforesaid finding of fact. This appeal may also be considered from another angle. Sub­section (2) of section 82 provides for an appeal against an order of the Employees' Insurance Court to the High Court only if it involves a substantial question of law. The question, therefore, is whether in the instant case any substantial question of law is involved. Admittedly, the dispute in this case relates to the number of persons employed in the establishment of the respondent No. 1. According to the Corporation it was more than 10 - according to the owner of the establishment it was less than 10. The Employees' Insurance Court, on appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a finding that it was less than 10. The question for consideration is whether a dispute regarding determination of the number of workers is a question of fact or it involves any substantial question of law. The Employees' Insurance Court, on appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a finding that it was less than 10. The question for consideration is whether a dispute regarding determination of the number of workers is a question of fact or it involves any substantial question of law. In my opinion, the finding regarding the number of persons is ordinarily a finding of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law that can be decided by the High Court under sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Employees' Insurance Court in the instant case being a finding of fact cannot be entertained by this Court in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Act. This appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count also. In the result, tan appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.