JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act is directed against the order dated 18.10.2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in W.C. Case No. 5 of, 1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 93,591/- has been awarded by way of compensation for the death of son of the claimant. 2. We have heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case is that claimant-Sukri Devi filed application stating inter alia that her son was working under the appellant-M/s Naween Transport Company and was engaged in transportation of coal from C.C.L. Colliery for patching of road work in between Rajrappa Project to Kathara which was being, done by the appellant. While the deceased was engaged by the appellant, for repair of road and alter doing his duty he was coming back by Dumper No. BR 20B-8151 he fell clown from the dumper on the road near Petarwar and seriously injured and in course of treatment he succumbed to injury on 27.11.1993. Claimants case is that due information of accident and death of the deceased was given to the appellant but. no compensation was paid. 4. The appellant contested the appeal by filing written statement denying the relationship of employer and employee stating that the vehicle in question did not belong to the appellant and that the appellant was never engaged for road repair work nor was transport contractor. 5. The Labour Court, after hearing; the parties and appreciating" the evidence on record, allowed the claim application and awarded compensation holding that. the appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award as being illegal and contrary to evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the labour court has not referred the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant which will go to show that the appellant was working in CCL as a transport contractor and was never engaged in road repair work. Learned Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded against the appellant is wholly erroneous. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the labour court it is manifestly clear that the labour court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded against the appellant is wholly erroneous. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the labour court it is manifestly clear that the labour court. has discussed the facts of the case and evidence on record in detail and recorded a finding of fact. for better appreciation paragraph 11 of the order is reproduced herein below: 11. A.W.2 is none else but ill-fated mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief she has categorically slated that her son Raju Karmali was working under opp. party No. 1, on the basis of daily wages as a labourer. She has further said that Kanti Lal Kothari was the proprietor of opp.party No. 1 and of course their is no denial to it. This witness has further said that her son on the date of occurrence was working under opp.party No. 1 and was engaged in road patching work and while he was coming back after duty by Dumper No. 20 B 8151 with the labourers the said dumper overturned and met with accident, and Raju Karmali seriously sustained injury. In course of treatment he died on 27. 11.93. She has further stated the expenses towards his treatment was paid by opp.party No. 1 but no compensation was paid after the death A.W3 has further said that she and her husband were dependent on the income of their deceased son and they had no other son except Raju Karmali. Nothing has come in her cross-examination rather she has said that the Dumper wherein her son was coming belonged to opp.party No. 1. No cross- examination has been made to this witness on the point that deceased Raju Karmali was not working under opp.party No. 1. Therefore, that portion of the evidence of the applicant remained ex-parte and no other proof is required whether deceased Raju Karmali was doing the work under the opp. party No. 1 or not: 8. From perusal of the aforesaid finding, it is evident that these findings are recorded on the basis of evidence of the witnesses examined in the court,. It, has not been disputed by the appellant that the deceased and three other persons were not coming on the dumper which met with an accident, resulting death of the deceased. From perusal of the aforesaid finding, it is evident that these findings are recorded on the basis of evidence of the witnesses examined in the court,. It, has not been disputed by the appellant that the deceased and three other persons were not coming on the dumper which met with an accident, resulting death of the deceased. One of the occupants of the dumper was examined and he in his evidence stated that the along with deceased were working in the appellants company and the death of the deceased was due to the accident caused by the dumper. There can not be any doubt that these findings are based on facts and evidence available on record. 9. Section 30 of the. Workmens Compensation Act very clearly contemplates that appeal against the. award under Workmens Compensation Act shall be entertained only when substantial question of law is involved. In my view, no substantial question of law is involved in this case. Moreover, the findings recorded by the court below cannot be head to be perverse or based on no evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which accordingly dismissed.