JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 19.11.98, whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs. 77,856/- as compensation and penalty of Rs. 38,144/-; total amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 1st March, 1996. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16th July, 1993 the deceased Bhiku Lal, the ancestor of the applicants was in employment of the appellant non-claimants. This fact is not in dispute. According to claimants the deceased Bhiku Lal while working in employment of the appellants met with accident and died, therefore, the claim petition was filed. 4. In reply, the non-claimants appellants submitted that Bhiku Lal was working as a Fitter Grade-II on 16th July, 1993. His shift started in the morning at 7.00 A.M. and was assigned the work of Engine No. 3237-YG. He was on duty from 7.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. and there was lunch break from 11.00 A.M. to 12.00 A.M. According to the appellants Bhiku Ram did not turn up after lunch break. It is stated by the appellants that another Engine No. 2520-YP was ready for steam test. It was line up at 6.00 A.M. and to look after steam Sh. Madan Singh and Engine Lighter Sh. Satyanarayan were on duty from 8.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. According to information of the employees Satyanarayan Engine Lighter started putting coal in engine lighter at 11.30 A.M. and when again he went in the engine at 12.05 P.M. he found something like dead body in the fire box. He informed Dhanraj and Bhagwan Das and ultimately informed IC Sick Line Sh. H.A. Habib. The information was given to the SHO, Sardarpura Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Jodhpur, SHO, GRP, Jodhpur and Inspector RPS. The Police came on the spot and the body was recovered. Post-mortem was conducted and the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased Bhiku Lal. In view of the above submissions, according to appellant non-applicants the claimants are not entitled for the claim as Bhiku Lal was not assigned duty on Engine No. 2520-YP nor it was a accident arising out in course of employment. Post-mortem was conducted and the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased Bhiku Lal. In view of the above submissions, according to appellant non-applicants the claimants are not entitled for the claim as Bhiku Lal was not assigned duty on Engine No. 2520-YP nor it was a accident arising out in course of employment. It is further submitted that it is not possible that one can fell in the fire box because it is having diameter of only 13". 5. The trial court framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the claimants in which claimant Mala Devi appeared as witness and also witnesses Laxminarayan, Josaf Valington Jon were produced in support of the claimant whereas non-claimants produced witnesses Heera Chand Tak and M.A. Habib. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence of the parties held that deceased Bhiku Lal was working on engine No. 2520 and he died while he was working on that engine and it was accident in the course of employment. So far as the emoluments, which were drawn by the deceased there was no dispute and, therefore, the above award was passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award passed by the tribunal deserves to be set aside because of the reason that it has come on record by evidence of the non-applicants appellants that Bhiku Lal was not assigned duty on engine No. 2520-YP but he was having the duty on engine No. 3237-YG. According to learned counsel for the appellant the tribunal, while recording finding, held that witness of the non-applicant appellants M.A. Habib stated in his evidence that he was on leave on 16th July, 1993 and this fact is wrong, therefore, also the award deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that appellant has filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 5th July, 2000 and prayed that attendance register of the witness Sh. M.A. Habib be taken on record wherein his attendance has been recorded and it is stated that this record's was earlier not produced and, advocate appearing before this Court, advised for searching the register and, thereafter, the copy of the register has been filed by the appellant along with this application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. M.A. Habib be taken on record wherein his attendance has been recorded and it is stated that this record's was earlier not produced and, advocate appearing before this Court, advised for searching the register and, thereafter, the copy of the register has been filed by the appellant along with this application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This Court passed the order on 6th Feb., 2001 to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC at the time of final hearing. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that this is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 wherein appeal lies only on the substantial question of law. Here in this case, there is no question of law even involved and even there is no mention of any substantial question of law in the memo of appeal nor any substantial question of law has been pointed out during arguments. What has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is nothing but requested for re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a decision contrary to the decision given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 9. According to learned counsel for the respondents, even on merits, also, when there are cogent evidence with respect to the direction to the deceased Bhiku Lal to work on engine No. 2520 and there is no misreading or non-reading of any piece of evidence then also there is no reason for this Court to entertain the appeal. According to learned counsel for the respondents there is evidence available on record to prove the fact of directions to the Bhiku Lal to work on the engine No. 2520 and there is no evidence that the accident occurred due to any fault of the Bhiku Lal. 10. After hearing the arguments I am of the considered view that there is no reason for permitting additional evidence to the appellants, which they sought by filing application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. There are more than one reasons for disallowing the application. The reason given by the appellants in the application is only that they earlier could not produce the above evidence before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and it was on the advice of the learned advocate of the appellant that the documents was searched by the appellant. There are more than one reasons for disallowing the application. The reason given by the appellants in the application is only that they earlier could not produce the above evidence before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and it was on the advice of the learned advocate of the appellant that the documents was searched by the appellant. This is hardly a reason constituting any cause for permitting the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Another reason is that when the statement of witness M.A. Habib, who was the witness of the appellants, stated on oath that he was on leave on 16th July, 1993 then without assigning any reason for his above statement and admission on oath, to contradict that statement on oath of the witness of the appellant themselves, there is no reason has been given in the application to permit the appellants to produce documentary evidence to contradict their own witness. The above fact was in the knowledge of the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal. The appeal was filed on 28th Jan., 1999 and at the time of filing of the appeal they were fully aware with respect to the admission of their own witness but this application was filed on 5th July, 2000. No reason has been given why the above application has not been filed along with appeal. At this belated stage the appellant cannot be permitted to produce new evidence, that too, contradicting their own witness. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the documentary evidence was sought to be produced is relevant even then, and even if it is held that M.A. Habib was not on leave on the relevant date even then has no material bearing because the learned Commissioner has decided against the appellant not only on this ground alone. 11. There is a substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that neither there is a substantial question of law has been pointed out in the memo of appeal or in the arguments. Even if there is an admission by mistake of the witness of the appellant M.A. Habib even then it will not effect the result of the decision given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as there are other reasons for passing the award by the Commissioner. 12. Even if there is an admission by mistake of the witness of the appellant M.A. Habib even then it will not effect the result of the decision given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as there are other reasons for passing the award by the Commissioner. 12. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner recorded reason for holding employment of the deceased Bhiku Lal on engine No. 2520 on the basis of the evidence of Laxminarayan and on the basis of the reasons that the employer did not hold any enquiry with respect to the above accident and nothing has been brought on record to show that this was a case of suicide or murder. The employer could have produced the FIR lodged by them but that was not produced. The result of the report of the police has also not been produced by the employer. None of the witness working on engine No. 3237 was produced. Therefore, when the trial court has recorded the finding not only on the basis of alleged wrong admission of witness M.A. Habib and the other reasons given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are not under challenge then also the appeal is not maintainable as it involve no substantial question of law. 13. It is clear from the evidence of Heera Chand Tak of the appellants that there is a procedure for giving oral instructions. Even the witness M.A. Habib also admitted that there is procedure of giving oral orders to work, then there is no reason to hold that in this case oral instruction were not given to the deceased. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mohammed Issak, 1969 (19) FLR 281 (SC) and delivered in Executive Engineer, 19th Div. R.C.P. v. Heera Ram, 1982 (44) FLR 179 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person working on different work than the assigned duty then it cannot be said that this accident is occurred in course of the discharge of duty in employment and this Court in ; Executive Engineer v. Heera Ram , held that the workman to put his hand on the carburettor when owing to misfire workman got burns at same places and died later. It was held that it was not the work related to his work as fitter. 15. It was held that it was not the work related to his work as fitter. 15. Both the above judgments have no application to the facts of this case, as in the present case the only dispute is with respect to the fact whether the deceased was assigned work on engine No. 3237-YG or engine No. 2520-YP. But the nature of work is not in dispute to be done by the deceased. Therefore, it has no application when it was found as a matter of fact that deceased was working on engine No. 2520-YP as per the instructions. Therefore, there is no substance to challenge the finding recorded on issue No. 2. 16. The finding on other issues are not under challenge. 17. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******