JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The unsuccessful non-applicants have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated May 24, 1988 rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Mandsaur in Case No. 63/86/WC thereby directing the appellant No. 2 to pay the sum of Rs. 50,832/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and dismissing the claim against appellant No. 1. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Tikamchand, Husband of respondent No. I and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 was in the employment of appellant No. 2 and was receiving wages @ Rs. 26/- per day. He was employed in the river valley Scheme of Kekukhada Stop Dam. On February 21, 1986, he died while on duty and thus due to accident arising out of in the course of his employment with appellant No. 2, the respondent therefore filed the claim petition against the appellants. The petition was opposed. On consideration, the aforesaid authority passed the order as noted above. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. This appeal was filed on August 3, 1988 and is thus, barred by three days. I.A. No. 2265/ 88 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. This was opposed by the respondents. On January 27, 1989 this Court had directed that this application shall be considered at the time of final hearing. On February 14, 1989, this appeal was admitted for its final hearing. The respondents were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. We heard the parties on LA. No. 2265/88. We allow the application and condone the delay. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the appeal also. 5. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and pass the order as according to him, the deceased Tikamchand was not the workman, within the meaning of law. He, therefore, submitted that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and pass the order as according to him, the deceased Tikamchand was not the workman, within the meaning of law. He, therefore, submitted that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Shri Paonekar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand dubbed the contention as non-meritorious and submitted that the authority rightly passed the order and there is no valid ground to make any interference as argued by the counsel for the appellants. 6. We proceed to examine the worth of rival contentions. 7. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides as under: "Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal." 8. The order-sheet dated February 14, 1989, however, does not show as to what particular substantial question of law was proposed by the appellants. We asked the counsel to indicate that today. He was unable to particularise any substantial question of law. All that he could submit was that the authority went wrong in holding the deceased as a workman and thus, entertaining the case under the aforesaid Act. 9. It is, however, not disputed before us that this question is a mixed question of fact and law. We find that the authority put this objection in the shape of issue No. 6 which was answered through Para 14 of the order in the under noted terms: ^^izfrizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls bl oknxzLr iz'u ds lca/k esa izdj.k esa dksbZ lknk izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA izfrizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls rdZ ds nkSjku Hkh ,slk dqN ugha crk;k x;k gS ftlls ;g ekuk tk; fd fo/kku ds izko/kku bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA e`rd fVdepUn ;kno feL=h ds dke ij fu;ksftr gksus ls odZeSu Fkk bl dkj.k fo/kku ds izko/kku bl izdj.k esa ykxw gksrs gSaA e`rd fVdepan ;kno dh e`R;q mldh ukSdjh ds dke ds nkSjku o mlls mRiq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i gksus ls e`rd fVdepan ds vkfJrx.k izfrizkFkhZ 1 nkfr/ku ikus ds ik= gSaA izdj.k esa fo/kku ds izko/kku ykxw u gksuk izekf.kr ;k fl) ugha gSA** 10. In Smt. Kajiyabai Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Macenzie and Co. Ltd., AIR 1970 Bom. In Smt. Kajiyabai Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Macenzie and Co. Ltd., AIR 1970 Bom. 278 it is held as under :-- "As regards the merits of the appeal, we find that the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that there was evidence to find that the deceased died of injuries due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the opposite party. Now an Appeal under Section 30 lies to this Court only on a substantial question of law. Mr. Justice Chitale, however, took the view that there was not enough material to establish causal connection between the course of employment and the illness which ultimately resulted into the deceased's death. With respect the question whether there is sufficient material to establish the particular fact, namely, causal connection between the course of employment and illness is a question of fact and does not raise any question of law. In holding that the death of the deceased was not only due to the disease but to the disease coupled with the employment, the Commissioner has rightly followed the principles laid down in AIR 1954 Bom. 180 . In our opinion, therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in interfering with the finding of fact made by the Commissioner." 11. It is thus, luculent that the appellants led no evidence to show that the deceased was not the workman within the meaning of law. The counsel for the appellants was unable to point out as to how the aforesaid conclusion was infirm or invalid. 12. The conclusion is based on appreciation of evidence and is manifestly fault-free. The counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any material which may warrant reversal of the finding based on appreciation of factual matrix. No question of law much less substantial question of law was shown to be involved in this appeal. The order impugned herein is based on appreciation of the facts and is the product of finding of fact alone. This appeal is devoid of substance and deserves the fate of dismissal. 13. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal with costs. Counsel's fee on either side shall be taxed at Rs. 500/-, if certified, the appellants shall pay the costs of the respondents.