ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. Appellant/employer has preferred this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short 'the Commissioner') (M.P.) in W.C. (Fatal) Case No. 13/97. As per the factual matrix of the case Shri Premlal Hazari aged 43 years husband of respondent No. 1 while father of respondents No. 3, 4 and deleted respondent No. 2 Kailash, was working as a gangman/labour with Appellant's department. On dated 30-8-1995 during the course of duty and discharging the official work at Railway Station Adhartal, due to heavy work and some filthy altercation of seniors, he died. His dead body was not referred to the Hospital for Misc. Appeal No. 2099 of 2000 decided on 29-9-2005. (Jabalpur) autopsy whereby a grave negligence was committed by the authority of Appellant. Besides this, Appellant has not reported this matter to Police which shows it's mala fide. The deceased was getting salary Rs. one thousand per month. The aforesaid respondents were dependent on him as such they were entitled for compensation thus application u/s 3 of the Act was preferred before the said Commissioner, Jabalpur for the sum of Rs. 1,69,440/- . In reply of the Appellant the fact regarding dependency of the respondent have been denied for want of knowledge. It was also denied that Premlal died because of the consequence of any accident during the course of the employment and discharging the official function. It is further mentioned that he died because of natural death. Thus neither report to police nor autopsy or postmortem of the dead body was required. As per record of the Appellant date of birth of deceased was 20-4-1942. Thus he was only 53 years old on his death. With these averments Appellant prayed for dismissal of the application of respondents. As per procedure said Commissioner Court has framed the issues and in order to prove and disprove the same parties led their evidence. On recording the same at the stage of appreciation, it was held that Premlal died due to accident during the course of employment and discharging the official duties. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are found to be the dependents of the deceased and Appellant was ordered to pay the compensation Rs. On recording the same at the stage of appreciation, it was held that Premlal died due to accident during the course of employment and discharging the official duties. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are found to be the dependents of the deceased and Appellant was ordered to pay the compensation Rs. 1,08,528/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 3-2-1997 to the respondents on account of death of said employee. Hence, employer has filed this appeal for setting aside the aforesaid order. The Statutory provisions of Section 30 of the Act specifically says that no appeal shall be admitted, which reads as under: 30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: In view of aforesaid provisions, the counsel for Appellant was asked to show and argue in respect of involved substantial question of law, as on earlier occasion on admission of the appeal, on dated 20-10-2000, no substantial questions of law were framed as the same are not found on record. Shri S.P. Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing for employer Appellant has submitted that death of said employee, had not happened because of any accident on duty and as per provision of Section 3 of the Act, in the absence of accident employer is not liable to indemnify any claim or compensation against dependent of the deceased and by referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act submitted that in available facts and circumstances the death of employee has not been proved as consequence of any accident although he conceded that at the time of death he was on duty and discharging the allotted work but not any heavy work as the department was knowing about his disease of Tuberculosis as such he was not in a position to perform hard or heavy work. He further submitted that he died natural death thus neither the matter was referred to police nor his dead body was sent for autopsy as it was not the requirement under the law. In view natural death Appellant could not be directed to pay compensation as awarded by the impugned order. He has raised another question that respondents have been awarded compensation by assessing on the basis of salary of the deceased Rs. two thousand per month as this much was not the salary on the date of accident but such limit was enhanced from 15-9-1995 with prospective effect. Thus the assessment on the basis of 40% salary by taking into consideration Rs. two thousand per month is not in accordance with law but so far factor is concerned he did not object it. Only on these two proposed substantial questions of law he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. Responding the arguments of the Appellant the counsel for respondents have submitted that deceased was acute patient of tuberculosis and not in a position to do the heavy work as gang-man. It could not be in dispute that during the course of cleaning the platform due to weakness because of said disease he died. In the absence of the postmortem report the version of the respondent regarding cause of death of the employee as said above could not be discarded thus it was only an accidental death during discharging the official function. In the absence of the postmortem report the version of the respondent regarding cause of death of the employee as said above could not be discarded thus it was only an accidental death during discharging the official function. He further submitted that the findings of the Commissioner in respect of the incident are having the force of finding of fact the same findings are not involving any questions of law rather than substantial questions of law thus the findings given by the Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence as such it could not be reconsidered by reappreciating the evidence, as such, the findings of facts could not be disturbed in appeal u/s 30 of the aforesaid Act. He further submitted that Section 4 of the Act as it was enforced on 30-8-1995 was rightly applied for the assessment of the compensation by multiplying the concerning factor of the Act with 40% monthly salary as salary was assessed Rs. 2,000/- per month. Thus appropriate compensation has been awarded. It could not be challenged in the appeal. As it does not raise any question of law rather substantial questions of law and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. On consideration of the aforesaid submissions of the respective parties I have gone through the record. It is not in dispute that the deceased employee was suffering by acute tuberculosis disease and during the course of employment in discharging his official duties for cleaning the platform he fell down and died. This incident neither reported to the police nor his dead body was sent for postmortem. Thus the version of the respondent could not be disbelieved that due to the aforesaid disease and the work of the employer employee died and on proper appreciation of the evidence the Commissioner has rightly held that during the course of discharging the official function death of the employee has taken place because of disease coupled with work and this is the finding of fact and such findings could not be considered as substantial questions of law. Thus it is held that no substantial questions of law involved in this respect in the appeal. My aforesaid view is fortified by decided case in the matter of Laxmibai Atmaram Vs. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust, (Vol. 41, C.N. 49) in which it is held as under: 5. Thus it is held that no substantial questions of law involved in this respect in the appeal. My aforesaid view is fortified by decided case in the matter of Laxmibai Atmaram Vs. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust, (Vol. 41, C.N. 49) in which it is held as under: 5. The question, therefore, that we have to consider is whether there was any causal connection between the death of this workman and his employment. The authorities again are clear that if the workman died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering, then it could not be said that his death was caused out of his employment. The authorities also have gone to this length that if a workman is suffering from a particular disease and as a result of wear and tear of his employment he dies of that disease, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But it is equally clearly established that if the employment is a contributory cause, or if the employment has accelerated the death, or if it could be said that the death was due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment, then the employer would be liable and it could be said that the death arose out of the employment of the deceased. Mr. Petigara says that we are bound to accept the finding of fact of the Commissioner and the Commissioner has observed that he failed to see what was the strain caused on the heart of the deceased by his duties as a night watchman, and he has further observed that it is impossible to link the death of the deceased with any exertion the deceased may have had on the day of his death. Mr. Petigara is perfectly right that in appeals against the decisions of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, we are bound by the findings of fact and the appeal only lies on substantial questions of law." In the case of AIR 1933 272 (Nagpur) (2) the Court held: The respondent has been awarded Rs. 819 as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the loss of sight in one eye, which the Commissioner has found to have been caused by an accident arising out of the scope of his employment as a ginfitter in the factory of the Appellant. 819 as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the loss of sight in one eye, which the Commissioner has found to have been caused by an accident arising out of the scope of his employment as a ginfitter in the factory of the Appellant. The Appellant appeals against that award on three grounds: first that the application was not maintainable in the absence of proper notice, secondly that the loss of sight was not caused by any accident in the factory, and thirdly that if any such accident did occur it did not occur in the course of his employment. The Commissioner has found that while the respondent was scraping the cylinder of the gas engine in the Appellant's factory, on 26th November, 1930, a particle of rust entered his eye, and that this eventually caused complete loss of sight in that eye. u/s 30 of the Act no appeal lies unless a substantial question of law is involved. This finding of the Commissioner therefore, which is based on the evidence of the respondent and Dr. Saoji, A.W. 2, who treated the respondent at the request of the manager of the factory, is a finding of fact that cannot now be challenged." The aforesaid view was also taken by Division Bench of this Court at earlier occasion in the matter of Divisional Railway Manager Central Railway Jabalpur v. Smt. Jamila Begum and Ors. M.A. No. 1805/01 in which it was held as under: So we have carefully gone through the order of the Commissioner and according to our considered opinion, the finding that death of the deceased employee took place during the course of employment while discharging the official functions as given on appreciation of the evidence and documents, are findings of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence, findings are not shown to be perverse in any manner and cannot be disturbed by invoking jurisdiction of the appeal u/s 30 of the Act as such the finding of fact cannot be a foundation for framing the substantial questions of law and thus we do not find any questions of law muchless a substantial question of law in the appeal of employer. So far other question raised by the Appellant is concerned Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act as enforced on the date of the incident reads as under: 4 Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to forty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; Or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) xxx xxx xxx The aforesaid provision was amended by the legislature with effect from 15-9-1995 which is not relevant for the case at hand. In view of the aforesaid provision the compensation was rightly worked out by the Commissioner on foundation of maximum salary of deceased Rs. 2,000/- per month. Out of this Rs. 800/- was taken as 40% of the monthly salary and by multiplying with the factor of 55 years i.e. 135.66 the total compensation was worked out Rs. 1,08,528/- the same is held in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of the Act it does not require any interference at the stage of the appeal. No any other point or question is raised by the Appellant. Thus by affirming the order of the Commissioner this appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed