JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—The above appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 by the Widowed mother of one Jit Singh and his unmarried sister and minor brother challenging the order dated 2.3.1991 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Dalhousie whereunder the application filed by the present appellants came to be dismissed holding that the compensation awarded and apportioned among the widow and widowed mother of Jit Singh was valid. It may also be pointed out at this stage that on account of the death of Jit Singh who was said to have been working as a driver in the services of the second respondent-Corporation the matter was reported to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under the provisions of the Act by the Assistant Manager, Equipment Division No.1 Chamera Project, Banikhet vide his reference dated 18.11.1987. Thereupon, the parties were said to have been summoned and on going through the representations in the form of material place the compensation payable has been determined at Rs. 81,192/-, for which the Management also seems to had no objection. As per the directions contained in the order dated 12,7.1988, the compensation was said to have been deposited by the Management and it was at that stage that the matter was again called by the third-respondent for apportionment. It was at that time that the widow of Jit Singh appears to have verbally stated that she alone is the legal heir and the whole amount has to be paid to her. But, at the same time in an application was said to have been moved stating that the minor brother and unmarried sister of the deceased, at the time of his death must also be given equal share. It is this claim that came to be considered by the third-respondent in his order dated 2.3.1991 and ultimately held that the widow and widowed mother alone are entitled to the compensation awarded and the unmarried sister and minor brother of the deceased are only genuine dependants of their mother who have been considered the dependants of the deceased and an order came to be passed accordingly. Hence, the above appeal. 2. Ms. Hence, the above appeal. 2. Ms. Anjali Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that as the definition of dependant stands in Section 2(d) of the Act, the unmarried sister as also minor brother would be falling within the said definition by virtue of the illustrations contained in Clause (iii) (d), and therefore, the order of the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel at length took us through the two orders passed by the 3rd-respondent and the materials placed on record to show respective age of the unmarried sister and minor brother of the deceased. 3. Per Contra, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel while reiterating the reason assigned by the 3rd-respondent contended the same is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and that in any event in the absence of any materials whatsoever on record to prove their entitlement, in law no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act could be said to arise so as to call for a decision in this regard by way of interference with the order of the 3rd-respondent apportioning the compensation awarded among the widow of the deceased and his widowed mother. 4. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Management adopted a neutral view and left the matter for the discretion of the Court contending that so far as the Management concerned, they have paid the amount of compensation as per orders of the 3rd respondent. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In our view, the class of persons enumerated under Section 2(d)(i) alone are entitled to claim to be dependants per se, on the basis of their relationship itself to the deceased workman they being the widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother. So far as the other categories of relatives enumerated in Clause (ii) and various limbs of (iii) of Section 2(d) is concerned, the proof of dependency such other relatives on the earnings of the workmen at the time of death is a condition precedent, and a must, before they can claim to answer the description of "dependants", so as to claim any share in the total compensation awarded on account of the death of the workmen. Even then, there is no right to claim any equal share, under the Act by them. In this case, there are absolutely no materials whatsoever placed before the 3rd respondent to show that the unmarried sister and the minor brother were dependants on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death and it is in the absence of such material only, apparently, the 3rd respondent has found that those two persons are the dependants if at all of the widowed mother and not the deceased brother, workman. Even that apart as rightly contended for the respondent-wife of the deceased Section 30 mandates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the various class or category of orders enumerated therein and the proviso thereto indicates that no appeal shall lie against any order "unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal," and in the light of the said categorical stipulation contained in the appellate provision in Section 30 of the Act there is no scope for pursuing any challenge of the nature that is now sought to be projected in this appeal before us. Not only there is no substantial question of law but since the entitlement of the minor brother and unmarried sister to claim any share in the compensation depends upon the factum of proof of dependency of such claimants on the earnings of the deceased workman at the time of his death, that the same being an absolutely of a factual issue and in the absence of any iota of material produced before the 3rd respondent to decide the said factual issue, no exception could be taken to the ultimate conclusions arrived at by him that the unmarried sister and minor brother were not the dependants, at any rate so far as this case is concerned, to claim any share in the compensation awarded on account of the death of the worker Jit Singh. 6. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit whatsoever in the above appeal. The appeal therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. -