JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.H.Sanjanwala for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. In present appeal, the appellant-Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) has challenged the award passed by the W.C.Commissioner, Ahmedabad in W.C.Application No.88 of 2000, Exh.64, dated 22.5.2007 whereby the Commissioner has directed to respondents to pay Rs. 2,22,710/- with 12% simple interest jointly and severally with penalty amount of Rs. 8908/- being a 4% also to be paid jointly and severally by all the respondents. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala has raised contention while referring to Section-12 of the Act that appellant cannot consider to be a principal employer because the work which was carried out, was not connected with the trade and business of the appellant. Therefore, the person, who died in the accident on 30.9.1999, was not an employee of the appellant and he was not engaged by the appellant and therefore, there was no relationship as an employer and employee between the appellant and deceased. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimant. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala also submitted that deceased was the employee of the contractor and sent to work in PRL and accident occurred in the premises of PRL-appellant. Therefore, only on that ground, the liability cannot be fastened on appellant. Relying upon the decision of Kerala High Court reported in 1973 ACJ 158, he pointed out that Section-12 of the Act has been considered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court that the principal entered into a contract to supply certain quantity of metal to the Southern Railway and the contractor had in turn entered into an agreement with the principal to supply the required quantity of metal. The contractor employed a coolie for the work of blasting of rocks in quarry and converting rubbles into metal. Whether it was ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal. It is held 'No'. A collie employed by a contractor died while engaged in the work of blasting rocks of quarry for the principal. The father of the deceased filed a claim for compensation against the contractor and the principal. Therefore, the question was whether the principal was liable as an employer. The answer is given by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court "No". The father of the deceased filed a claim for compensation against the contractor and the principal. Therefore, the question was whether the principal was liable as an employer. The answer is given by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court "No". But it is made clear that if the claimant has failed to prove that the workman was working in the quarry belonging to or taken by the Principal or Principal has any control or management of the premises where the accident took place, it has been held on invoke the provision of Section it is necessary the accident should have been occurred on, in or about such premises as on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work or premises which are otherwise under his control. 5. I have considered the aforesaid decision cited by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala and also perused the judgment passed by the Commissioner. The accident occurred on 30.9.1999. The respondent No.3 - Prakashbhai G. Panchal has obtained the contract from respondent No.2 for repairing the AC cooling and wooden repairing where Govindbhai B. Barot was working, appointed by the contractor. He was sent for work in the premises of appellant for performing the work at the premises to supply the wooden blocks in cooling tower of AC. Accordingly, the instruction was received by the deceased, he remained present on 1.00 p.m. in the premises of appellant and while doing the work, due to electric shock, Govindbhai died immediately. At that occasion, the officer of the appellant was in charge, who has given instruction to deceased to fit bolt and nut and accordingly, instruction was received from the officer of the appellant, the drill machine was taken by the deceased for doing the whole in the wooden block and meanwhile, this electric shock was received by the deceased and he died in the hospital who was taken by appellant Institution. That was informed to the claimant at about 2.00 p.m. by the appellant. This drilling machine was supplied by appellant because there was no drilling machine available with respondent No.2 and 3 contractor. That was informed to the claimant at about 2.00 p.m. by the appellant. This drilling machine was supplied by appellant because there was no drilling machine available with respondent No.2 and 3 contractor. There was some defect in the drilling machine which has resulted into electric shock from the water and due to that, the deceased died while working in the premises of the appellant but, no steps have been taken by appellant and due to that defect in the drilling machine, this accident has been occurred. That Mr.Govindbhai died after shifting in the hospital. Thereafter, postmortem was carried out and demand was made by the claimant from both the respondents but, no reply is given and no payment has been made and that is how the application was made before the Commissioner. Both the respondents have filed the reply denying the averments made in claim application and on behalf of claimant, certain documents were produced on record. Vide Exh.25 notice served to the appellant as well as contractor and thereafter, certain documents were produced by the respondents and claimant was examined vide Exh.24 Bhanwarlal C. Barot and thereafter, evidence was closed. One witness Ravindranath Ranmangal Mishra was examined by appellant and thereafter evidence was closed and one Prakash Govindbhai was also examined as a worker Exh.56 and thereafter evidence has been closed. 6. The Commissioner has examined the entire matter on evidence and after appreciating the same, the Commissioner has come to conclusion that accident occurred in the premises of the appellant. The deceased was the employee of the contractor, who was sent for doing the work of the appellant and the appellant had directed to deceased through officer to carry out the work of drilling in AC Colling and wooden blocks. Accordingly, on receiving the instructions from the officer of the appellant, the work was carried out and the drilling machine was supplied by the appellant which was found to be defective and due to that, accident occurred where Govindbhai died. On the basis of this evidence which has been established before the Commissioner that between the appellant and deceased, there is a relationship of employer and employee is established. On the basis of this evidence which has been established before the Commissioner that between the appellant and deceased, there is a relationship of employer and employee is established. The reason is that definition of employer under Section 2(e) which is quoted as under : "2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other persons while the workman is working for him." 7. As per Section 2(e) of the Act it provides "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other persons while the workman is working for him. 8. Looking to this definition, the contractor with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service, the service of the workman temporarily lent on hire to appellant and workman was working with appellant at the time when the accident occurred. Therefore, looking to these facts, the definition of employer is satisfied. Accordingly, the appellant is considered to be an employer and therefore, there was a relationship between appellant and deceased as an employer and employee. That decision has been rightly taken on the basis of evidence by the Commissioner. For that, the Commissioner has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. 9. The Commissioner has rightly examined the issue that appellant is also the principal employer while considering Section 12 of the Act. There is no contention raised in respect to quantum fixed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the W.C.Act. Therefore, this Court has not examined the question of quantum which has been decided by the Commissioner. 10. 9. The Commissioner has rightly examined the issue that appellant is also the principal employer while considering Section 12 of the Act. There is no contention raised in respect to quantum fixed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the W.C.Act. Therefore, this Court has not examined the question of quantum which has been decided by the Commissioner. 10. The Bombay High Court has, in case of Dashrath, Son of Sakharam Mali v. Data, Son of Maruti Kshirsagar reported in 2002 (IV) LLJ (suppl) 286, considered the aforesaid aspect wherein it has been held that : "The High Court dismissed the present appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in favour of the respondent-injured workman. It observed the finding and conclusion of the Commissioner were based on factual evidence before him and they were neither baseless nor perverse. There was no substantial question of law in this appeal as required by Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923." 11. The Orissa High Court has, in case of Managing Director, Orissa State Warehousing Corporation. V smt. Gitarani Seal & Another reported in 1992 (I) LLJ 619 , considered the aforesaid aspect wherein it has been held that: "The undisputed business activities of the appellant are to store commodities. For such a storage, a storage place is absolutely necessary and the construction or repair of such storage place cannot be said to be link-less so far as the business or trade activities of the appellant are concerned. Therefore, the contention that the nature of employment, if any, had no link with the trade or business of the appellant cannot be accepted. Any person, which obviously includes a corporation, who engages a contractor in the course or for the purpose of his trade or business, contracts with any other person for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of such work, incurs the liability in respect of the workman vis-a-vis the contractor. The liability in such an event passes on to the principal employer. But the principal employer is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor." 12. The Allahabad High Court has, in case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. The liability in such an event passes on to the principal employer. But the principal employer is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor." 12. The Allahabad High Court has, in case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Merrut v. Resma Khaton and others, reported in 2003 (II) LLJ-1022, considered the aforesaid aspect wherein it has been held that "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Sec. 30-No substantial question of law raised in appeal-Appeal dismissed." 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala and also perused the appeal memo filed by appellant. In entire appeal memo, the appellant has not raised any substantial question of law and accordingly, the substantial question of law is not involved and without raising the substantial question of law and involved in this appeal, according to proviso of Section 30 of the Act, the appeal is not maintainable. Section -30 of the Act provides that "no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, in absence of raising substantial question of law by the appellant in appeal and according to my opinion, it is also not involved in first appeal, then appeal is not maintainable. This aspect has been considered by the Madras High Court in case of The Management, Boys Town Society, Tirumangala, represented by its Secretary, Boys Town, Tirumangala v. V. Palani & Anr. Reported in 1997 (II) LCR 681. Relevant observations are in Para.6, therefore, quoted as under : "6. ... It has been held in the decision reported in Ramaswami v. Poongavanam, (1953) 1 MLJ 557 : AIR 1954 Madras 218 : 66 L.W.440 : 1953 MWN 273, that whether a person is a workman or not is a question of fact on which there can be no appeal as per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It has been held in the decision reported in Smt. Asmath Beebi (Died) v. Smt. Marimuthu, (1990) 1 LLN 891, also as follows : "A question of fact, however substantial, cannot masquerade as a question of law and cannot automatically be treated as substantial one even if the amount involved is substantial or the argument pressed is vehement. It has been held in the decision reported in Smt. Asmath Beebi (Died) v. Smt. Marimuthu, (1990) 1 LLN 891, also as follows : "A question of fact, however substantial, cannot masquerade as a question of law and cannot automatically be treated as substantial one even if the amount involved is substantial or the argument pressed is vehement. If it is of great public importance or if it arises so frequently as to affect a large class of people or is so basic to be operation of the Act itself, one may designate the question of law substantial. But, where it is covered already by precedents or the law on that aspect is well settled, the mere difficult of applying the fact to that law cannot make it a substantial question of law" When we consider these two decisions, I am of opinion that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appeal itself is not maintainable since there is no substantial question of law as required under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is involved, is well founded and on that ground itself, the appeal is liable to be dismissed." 14. In the aforesaid decision of Madras High Court, what is the substantial question of law has been discussed in detail. Therefore, this being an additional ground, this appeal is required to be dismissed. So I have considered the merits of the appeal as well as contention raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala. After considering the appeal memo, there is no substantial question of law has been raised by appellant, therefore, this appeal is also not maintainable in law. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 15. Consequently, civil application for stay is also dismissed. 16. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi requested this Court that amount which is already deposited by the appellant, that may be disbursed in favour of claimants because accident occurred on 30.9.1999 and about more than 10 years have passed and the claimant is without compensation because of this long long battle. 17. Considering his request, it is directed to the Commissioner under the W.C.Act at Ahmedabad to disburse the amount which is deposited by the appellant in favour of claimant by account payee cheque after proper verification. Appeal dismissed.