JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2000 passed in M.A. No. 324 of 1998 by which the appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'), against the award passed by the Commissioner under the provision of the said Act in W.C. Case No. 65-D/96, has been rejected on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved therein. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that one Babaji Sethi (deceased) was working as a labourer on the Tractor attached with a trolley belonging to Respondent No. 1. Babaji died while performing his duty on 27.3.1996. The claimants filed a Claim Petition with the averments that the deceased was 30 years of age and was getting Rs. 1500 per month as his wages. In pursuance thereof, notice was issued by the Commissioner to the owner of the vehicle, but he neither appeared nor filed any written statement. Thus, he was proceeded ex parte. The present Appellant/Insurance Company filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings the Commissioner framed four issues and after considering the evidence led by the parties, all the four issues had been decided against the present Appellant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,985 as compensation and the present Appellant/insurer was directed to make the payment of the said amount vide awarded dated 26.3.1998. The Appellant being aggrieved preferred the appeal u/s 30 of the said Act, which has been rejected by the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge observing that no substantial question of law was involved. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as the insurance policy did not cover the labourer, the insurer could not be fastened with the liability of compensation. In order to fortify her submissions she has placed very heavy reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and Others wherein placing reliance upon its earlier Judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others the Supreme Court has held that so far as liability regarding labourers travelling in trolley is concerned, the Insurance Company has no liability. 4. Serjerao and Others wherein placing reliance upon its earlier Judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others the Supreme Court has held that so far as liability regarding labourers travelling in trolley is concerned, the Insurance Company has no liability. 4. In fact in Brij Mohan (supra) the Apex Court considered the facts and observed that there was nothing on record to show that the trolley was also insured as the owner of the tractor has not produced the insurance cover certificate. 5. In the instant case, the Insurance Company appeared before the Commissioner, filed its written statement but did not agitate the issue at all. Thus ground is being urged only after commencement of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. No ground has been taken by the Appellant even before us in this regard. The insurance company has not placed any document to show that the insurance policy did not cover the labourers. Therefore, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable. 6. Further the issue has been decided after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicles was insured with the Appellant-company vide policy No. 3155030303671 which was valid up to 16.5.1996 covering the date of accident and therefore the insurer was held liable to make payment of compensation. It was not pleaded before the Commissioner that the insurance policy did not cover the said labourer. 7. As to whether the insurance policy covered the labourer working on the tractor is a pure question of fact and no evidence had been led before the Commissioner on this issue, we fail to understand as to how such a question of fact can be agitated u/s 30 of the said Act. Section 30 of the said Act provides that appeal can be entertained by the High Court only on substantial question of law. It provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore the question does arise as to whether any substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. 8. It provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore the question does arise as to whether any substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. 8. Such a requirement is also there u/s 100 of the CPC (hereinafter called 'CPC') for entertaining a second appeal and it has consistently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous finding based on appreciation on relevant evidence. The appeal could be entertained only on substantial question of law. It is the duty of the Court that before entertaining an appeal it must consider the involvement of substantial question of law in the appeal. 9. In State Bank of India and Others Vs. S.N. Goyal the Supreme Court explained the terms "substantial question of law" and observed as under: The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties...any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this Court (or by the High Court concerned so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this Court (or by the High Court concerned so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by this Court (or by the High Court concerned), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by this Court (or the High Court concerned) would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a substantial question of law as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by this Court (or the High Court concerned) and the same has been followed by the lower court, if the Appellant is able to persuade the High Court that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two viewpoints, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case. 10. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 798 ; and Kshitish Chandra Purkait Vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others the Supreme Court observed that while deciding the second appeals, mandatory statutory requirements are seldom borne in mind and second appeals are being entertained without conforming to the above discipline. Though such a course was not permissible. 11. There may be a question, which may be a "question of fact", "question of law", "mixed question of fact & law" & "substantial question of law." Question means anything inquired; an issue to be decided. The "question of fact" is whether a particular factual situation exists or not. Though such a course was not permissible. 11. There may be a question, which may be a "question of fact", "question of law", "mixed question of fact & law" & "substantial question of law." Question means anything inquired; an issue to be decided. The "question of fact" is whether a particular factual situation exists or not. A question of fact, in the Realm of Jurisprudence, has been explained as under: A question of fact is one capable of being answered by way of demonstration. A question of opinion is one that cannot be so answered. An answer to it is a matter of speculation which cannot be proved by any available evidence to be right or wrong. (Vide Salmond, on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn page 69, cited in Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Others, ). 12. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. Vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining the issue by the Supreme Court itself, held as under: The proper test for determining whether a question of law raises in the case is substantial, would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by Privy Councilor by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 13. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Vs. Thakur Ganga Singh for self and on behalf of other shareholders of Jammu and Kashmir Mechanics and Transport Workers Co-operative Society Limited and Another considered as what may be the substantial question and held that authentic interpretation of the Constitutional provisions amounts to substantial question of law. Thakur Ganga Singh for self and on behalf of other shareholders of Jammu and Kashmir Mechanics and Transport Workers Co-operative Society Limited and Another considered as what may be the substantial question and held that authentic interpretation of the Constitutional provisions amounts to substantial question of law. However, where the substantial question of law had already been decided by the Authority which is binding on the other Courts like the Judgments of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding on all other Courts etc., it does not remain a substantial question of law because there remains no scope to interpret further the said provision. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgments in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, ; and Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Others Vs. The State of Bihar. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 682 . 14. In Reserve Bank of India and Another Vs. Ramkrishna Govind Morey the Supreme Court held that whether Trial Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently, is not a question of law or a substantial question of law and, therefore, second appeal cannot be entertained by the High Court on this ground. 15. Existence of substantial question of law is a condition precedent for entertaining the second appeal. (Vide Sarjas Rai and Others Vs. Bakshi Inderjit Singh, ; Manicka Poosali (Dead) by LRs. and Others Vs. Anjalai Ammal and Another, ; Mst. Sugani Vs. Rameshwar Das and Another, ; Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal, ; Narayan Chandra Ghosh and Others Vs. Kanailal Ghosh and Others, . 16. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh and Another, . 17. In P. Chandrasekharan and Others Vs. S. Kanakarajan and Others, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that interference in appeal is permissible only when the findings are based on misreading of evidence or are so perverse that no person of ordinary prudence could take the said view. More so, the Court must be conscious that intervention is permissible provided the case involves a substantial question of law which is altogether different from the question of law. More so, the Court must be conscious that intervention is permissible provided the case involves a substantial question of law which is altogether different from the question of law. Interpretation of a document which goes to the root of title of a party may give rise to substantial question of law. 18. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another the Apex Court considered the scope of appeal u/s 30 of the said Act, 1923 and held as under: Section 30 of the said Act postulates an appeal directly to the High Court if a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal .A jurisdictional question will involve a substantial question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law.... A question of law would arise when the same is not dependent upon examination of evidence, which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse in the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, . 19. In the instant case the only question involved as to whether the insurance policy covered the labourer working on the tractor trolley. It is a pure question of fact which could be proceeded only by examining the contents of the policy. The plea taken by the Appellant herein had not been advanced before the Commissioner under the said Act. The appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge. Appeal lacks merit & the same is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed