Judgment 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The third respondent is the lorry owner, which is a bore well lorry, that was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The same is not in dispute. 2. The son of the respondents 1 and 2 died during and in the course of employment in the bore well operation carried out by the lorry. The unfortunate death took place on 20.12.2006. The first respondent is the mother and the second respondent is the father of the deceased workman. They filed W.C.No.95 of 2007, claiming compensation for the death of their son. 3. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Dindigul passed an order dated 07.12.2009, holding that the employer is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the workman, that arose during and in the course of employment and the Commissioner further directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the same based on the insurance policy. The Commission directed to pay Rs.4,15,608/- as compensation, within a period of one month, failing which, 12% interest shall be paid for the compensation amount until it is paid. 4. The appellant Insurance Company paid the entire amount as per the order of Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, has preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has raised two questions of law viz., (i) the deceased workman was not employed by the third respondent lorry owner and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation under the Workman Compensation Act and (ii) the deceased was said to have been worked as a helper in the bore well lorry and the helper is not covered under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The issue as to whether the deceased is a workman or not is purely a question of fact and the Commissioner has recorded a finding that the deceased was a workman and this Court, under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, cannot go into such a factual question. In my view, no question of law has arisen as to whether the deceased is a workman or not. However, on the perusal of the order makes it clear that there is a categorical finding that the deceased was workman employed by the third respondent. 8. In my view, no question of law has arisen as to whether the deceased is a workman or not. However, on the perusal of the order makes it clear that there is a categorical finding that the deceased was workman employed by the third respondent. 8. As per the complaint given by the father of the deceased, an F.I.R. has been registered about the death, wherein, it was stated that the third respondent took his son for employment for bore well operation. The F.I.R. is an indicator that the deceased was employed by the third respondent. A colleague was also examined as P.W.2. He also spoke about the employment. The First Information Report read with the evidence of P.W.2 makes it clear that the deceased was employed by the third respondent and there were factual findings on this aspect. Hence, the contention of the appellant in this regard deserves to be rejected. I once again reiterated that the issue as to whether the deceased is a workman or not is a purely a question of fact and that would not come for determination under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. 9. The second legal issue that is canvassed before me is that the deceased workman is not a workman under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the deceased was employed only as a helper by the third respondent in the bore well lorry, he is not covered under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act. 10. Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act makes it clear that any employment under schedule II of the Act is covered under the Act. Clause XLI of Schedule II of the Workmen Compensation Act is extracted hereunder: "(xli) employed, otherwise than in cletical capacity, in the construction, working repair or maintenance of a bore well, bore-cum-dug- well, filter point, etc;" The aforesaid clause makes it clear that any workman, who employed in boring activity is covered under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act. 11. In view of the same, there are no merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.