1. The National Insurance Company has invoked Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules by filing the instant appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CIMA no. 109/2004. The learned Single Judge has returned the findings on the basis of admitted facts. It has been found that the claimant-respondent sustained injuries and he was also in the employment of Shri Arhin-Ul-Aziz. It was also conceded that the vehicle bearing registration no.JK-4-1146 was insured with the appellant- company at the relevant point of time and there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the claimant had suffered 80% disablement. The learned Single Judge also Opined that the appeal against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity the Act) would be competent as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Act if a substantial question of law is involved. On the score that no substantial question of law was involved and the appellant wanted the learned Single Judge to examine all its pleas afresh which were raised before the Commissioner, the learned Single Judge rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has raised a preliminary objection at the out set and has argued that a Letters Patent Appeal would not be competent because the authorities under the Act are the creature of the statute. According to the learned counsel, unless the appeal is permitted to be filed under the Statute, no appeal would be maintainable. In that regard he has drawn our attention to Section 30 of the Act which does not permit filing of Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. According to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner which is further limited by clauses (a) to (e) and provisos. It necessarily follows that no second appeal would be competent in the shape of Letters Patent without the sanction of a Statute. The aforesaid provision reads as under:- "30 Appeals.-(1) Arf. It necessarily follows that no second appeal would be competent in the shape of Letters Patent without the sanction of a Statute. The aforesaid provision reads as under:- "30 Appeals.-(1) Arf. 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; (a) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order Allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or (e) An order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Providing 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; Provided further that no appeal shall he in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties. 2[Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against] (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the 3/the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 3. A perusal of Section 30 would show that an appeal before the High Court would lie only on a substantial question of law. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the 3/the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 3. A perusal of Section 30 would show that an appeal before the High Court would lie only on a substantial question of law. Moreover there is no provision for filing a second appeal. 4. It is well settled that the right of appeal is not an inherent right and it cannot be assumed to extend unless it is expressly provided for by a Statute. It necessarily follows that the appeal is creature of a Statute and, therefore, it must be legitimately traceable to a statutory provision. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. State of U. P. and anr. (2009) 10 SCC 531 and 5-Judge Constitution Bench judgments in case of Sita Ram and ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 2 SCC 656 and Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520 . 5. Once the legal position is clear that there is no provision in the Statute, which may be traceable to make the instant appeal competent, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal. 6., It is, accordingly, held that the appeal is not maintainable and on that ground the same is dismissed. 7. No costs.