1. Amputation of right leg below the knee joint of a young man of 16 years due to an injury caused on his person by a mine blast, arising out of and in the course of his employment as a Porter of the appellant on 06.08.2000, resulted in institution of claim for compensation under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act (for short Act) before the Commissioner under the Act (Commissioner hereinafter). The claim culminated in grant of compensation to the tune of rupees 2,71,505/- by Commissioners order dated 02.05.2003 on the strength of the evidence brought on record. 2. Being aggrieved, therefore this appeal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice which calls for consideration on the touchstone of the statute and statutory rules. Perusal whereof reveals that a set procedure envisaged inter-alia requires the Commissioner to put the opposite party to notice. Indisputably said statutory obligation stands complied with in its letter and spirit which fact has been admitted by the respondents in writing as well. Thus inspite of discharging the requirement of notice to the opposite party by the Commissioner satisfactorily, the appellant in his own wisdom chose not to enter appearance. As a corollary ex parte award, a legally permissible course of action was resorted to. Suffice it to say that the appellant having sufficient notice, adherence to the statute is manifest which renders the ground of violation of principles of natural justice redundant. 3. Now a word about a feeble mention made by the learned counsel that there was no evidence before the Commissioner to hold that the injury was suffered by the respondent No.1 claimant in the course of employment. The contention is debunk by the documents relied upon by the Commissioner in support of the award, besides the evidence recorded. Thus argument fails. No other ground was pressed into service. 4. Yet another difficulty for the appellant, undoubtedly the right of appeal flows to him under section 30 of the Act but sine qua non is fulfillment of the condition spelt out in the proviso to section 30 (1) of the Act that is raising of a substantial question of law which is a mandatory requirement. How far said condition is satisfied by the appellant, needs to be appreciated in the light of ground of challenge depicting that the occurrence does not arise out of and in the course of employment. How far said condition is satisfied by the appellant, needs to be appreciated in the light of ground of challenge depicting that the occurrence does not arise out of and in the course of employment. Apparently, the challenge is built on a pure question of fact and not of law, muchless a substantial question of law. Thus not maintainable. 5. In the aforementioned backdrop, the appeal is dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s). No order as to costs.