JUDGMENT U.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order, dated February 26, 1998, by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Sagar, in Case of No. 3 of 1992 WCF, whereby an amount of Rs. 54,331 has been awarded in favour of the respondent/claimant - the father of deceased Motilal. 2. The respondent/claimant filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Sagar, alleging that his son Motilal aged about 18 years was employed by the appellant in his mine as a labourer. He died on account of accident by falling into the stone mine. Deceased Motilal was earning Rs. 600 per month, Compensation of Rs. 54,331 was accordingly claimed. 3. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. It was denied that deceased Motilal was employed as a labourer/by him or died in the course of his employment. It was also denied that he was earning monthly wages of Rs. 600. 4. The learned commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after recording evidence and appreciation and scrutiny thereof, recorded a finding that Motilal was in the employment of the present appellant and died on account of accident. Accordingly, the petition of the respondent was allowed and compensation, as prayed for, was awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the material and evidence placed on record do not go to show that the deceased was employed by the appellant. It was also urged that there is evidence on record to show that the deceased was studying in school, and therefore, could not be in the employment of the appellant. It has further been urged that the attendance register of the workers in the mine (Exhibit D/3) produced by the appellant negatives the finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 6. However, after considering the contentions as above, it is clear that even if Motilal was studying in school by itself, it would not conclusively establish that he was not working in the employment of the appellant. The hours of school may not have collided with the working hours of the deceased. Moreover, testimony of the parents of the deceased would indicate that their son-deceased Motilal, was in the employment of the present appellant. The hours of school may not have collided with the working hours of the deceased. Moreover, testimony of the parents of the deceased would indicate that their son-deceased Motilal, was in the employment of the present appellant. The learned Commissioner after examining the attendance register produced by the appellant found that the same cannot be relied upon, in view of interpolations therein. The finding of fact as recorded by the learned Commissioner is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference. In view of above, the impugned order granting compensation, is justified. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Parties shall however, bear their own costs of this appeal, in the circumstances of the case.