JUDGMENT 1. Sudan Sao, respondent No. .1 was employed with the contractor. Lav Kumar, respondent No, 3. 2. The said contractor was engaged by Soil Conservation Department, Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribagh, for earth cutting under Agreement No. SCE Tender-6 of 1983-84 for E/D-2 Dary at Khadaiya for a period of four months, commencing form 6.9.1983. 3. Sudan Sao filed an application under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Labour Court for compensation. 4. According to him on 10.12.1993, awhile he was doing earth work under the contractor. Lav Kumar. he sustained injury in his right leg on account of an accident. It was caused by fall of a big palas tree upon him. 5. Both Director. Soil Conservation Department of Damodar Valley Corporation as well as contractor filed separate show cause and contested the claim case. 6. On behalf of Damodar Valley Corporation it was accepted that injured- claimant was engaged by the contractor for doing the aforesaid earth work on behalf of the Corporation but any accident and thereby injuries caused to him while doing earth work in question was denied. The contractor also denied such accident. According to contractor, on the date of occurrence the injured Sudan Sao was not working with him and had gone to jungle to cut wood where a Palas tree fell on his right leg and caused fracture. 7. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on the basis of materials brought on record found that the claimant sustained injury while doing earth work under the contractor who was engaged by the Damodar Valley Corporation and assessed a sum of Rs. 24,000/- with interest & 6% per annum payable from one month after the accident till payment. 8. In the impugned order a direction was given to the claimant to get himself examined by a Medical Board, under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon. Hazaribagh, for assessment of loss of his working capacity on account of disability sustained by him in the accident and only, thereafter, to receive the amount of compensation. 9. Mr. Rajnandan Sahay, counsel for appellant-Damodar Valley Corporation sub- mitted that claimant was a casual labourer engaged by contractor and on the date of occurrence he was not doing the work in question rather had gone to Jungle to cut wood, where an accident occurred and he sustained injury therein. 9. Mr. Rajnandan Sahay, counsel for appellant-Damodar Valley Corporation sub- mitted that claimant was a casual labourer engaged by contractor and on the date of occurrence he was not doing the work in question rather had gone to Jungle to cut wood, where an accident occurred and he sustained injury therein. Present case under the Act, therefore, was not maintainable at the instance of injured- respondent against appellant as well as the said contractor and impugned judgment and award are fit to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Prasad, counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 submitted that appellant accepted in the pleadings before the Court below that the claimant was engaged by the contractor. Appellant failed to establish that accident had taken place in Jungle and not when in injured-claimant was doing earth work. 11. Under Section 12 of the Act, the appellant is no doubt principal under whom contractor-respondent No. 3 was engaged for performing earth work in question and as such appellant was liable to pay compensation under the Act. 12. It is well settled that appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act was confined to substantial question of law, if any, involved in appeal. A finding on question of fact cannot be gone into and decided in such appeal, unless it was perverse, based on no evidence or was recorded without considering an evidence on record. 13. In the present case the court below on the basis of an evidence adduced by the parties recorded findings of fact that claimant was a "workman" within the meaning of the Act and had sustained injury in course of his job. 14. We, therefore, do not find substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that Damodar Valley Corporation was the principal and was getting earth work in question done through a contractor and, therefore, under Section 12(1) of the Act Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the injured workman. 15. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and award. This appeal is dismissed, but without costs.