JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against Award dated 31.07.2017, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. It is stated in the appeal that the claim petition came to be filed against the appellant under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 received personal injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant while working as Labourer. It was alleged that on 2/11/1999 while the respondent No. 1 was busy in launching scants, the respondent No. 1 was hit by a scant of wood, resulting in facture's of both thumbs of respondent No. 1 and with the result, the respondent No. 1 became disabled. It was alleged that at the time of accident the respondent was earning Rs. 2,000/- PM as wages. It was also alleged that the age of the respondent was 22 years. That after the receipt of the notice, the appellant filed the objections to the claim petition denying employment, accident and liability to pay compensation. That thereafter evidence was led, and ultimately, on 31/07/2017, an award came to be passed. That the appellant is aggrieved of the award dated 31/07/2017 on the following amongst other grounds: i. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, while passing the award impugned overlooked the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as Act as well as the rules framed thereunder. ii. That while passing the impugned award, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as ALC has violated the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10 of the Act. That no notice of alleged accident was ever served by the respondent upon the appellant or any of its officers. It is further submitted that the award is completely silent as to the criteria adopted by ALC for determining the wages of the respondent. iii. That ALC has committed illegality while passing the impugned award as it has failed to appreciate the total failure on the part of respondent to establish his case for grant of compensation. iv. That the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that though Jammu and kashmir State Forest Corporation was necessary party, yet it was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings before ALC, and, under such circumstances no liability under the award could have been fastened on it. iv. That the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that though Jammu and kashmir State Forest Corporation was necessary party, yet it was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings before ALC, and, under such circumstances no liability under the award could have been fastened on it. v. That the award is liable to be set aside as the provisions of the Act were not at all applicable to the facts of the case, the award thus passed by ALC is void and nullity in the eyes of law. vi. That while passing the impugned award, the ALC has completely ignored the provisions of Section (4) of the Act. The statement of the Doctor whereas on the one hand was unrealistic, unreliable, inadmissible against medical jurisprudence as well as the law and guidelines laid down in the schedule of the Act, on the other hand, it could not have formed the basis for awarding compensation in favour of the respondent. That it was mandatory for ALC to first identify the nature of the injury and then assess compensation in accordance with law as mode of assessment of compensation is different for different injuries. ALC, it seems has granted the compensation as if the injury were of permanent character which fact is against the record and are vehemence denied. That the aforesaid submission has been made without prejudice to the submission already made in the memo of appeal. vii. ALC while passing the impugned award has virtually offended and violated all the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under viii. That the devastating contradictions in the pleading and in the evidence of the respondent have been totally ignored by ALC while passing the impugned award. ix. That without prejudice to the submissions made here in above, it is most respectfully submitted even if the respondent received injury while executing the work as alleged by him in his petition for compensation, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation to him under the Act as per own showing of the respondent that he was engaged as a labourer by the contractor. Under the circumstances, there was no relationship of workman and employer between the respondent and the appellant and thus no liability on the appellant could have been fastened. Under the circumstances, there was no relationship of workman and employer between the respondent and the appellant and thus no liability on the appellant could have been fastened. x. That ALC has further committed illegality by ignoring the fatal and devastating contradiction between the claim petition, and other evidence on the one hand and between the claim petition and other qua the medical evidence. xi. That ALC has gone out of the way to pass the award in favour of the respondent which is totally against the record and law. xii. That ALC has further committed illegality the fatal contradictions in the claim petition and the statement of respondent regarding his age. xiii. That even otherwise the evidence of doctor does not justify the impugned award. xiv. That there exists a substantial question of law in this appeal as the award is based upon no evidence. xv. That the interest awarded is also not legally sustainable. xvi. That the award passed does not satisfy the test of being qualified as a judgment in accordance with law. More so, from the award passed, it shows that issues have not been framed and no discussion has been given in the award so as to fasten the liability. In view of this also it is submitted that there exists a substantial question of law. xvii. That the appellant has deposited the amount in terms of the certificate with ALC. xviii. That following substantial question of law arises in the present case. a. Whether without determining the nature of injury as per the Workmen Compensation Act, can an award be passed for the grant of compensation as has been done in this case. b. Whether the award passed in this case satisfy the requirement of being declared as a judgment in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act and rules framed thereunder? c. Whether there are any issues framed and whether there are any findings on issue wise and the findings supported with reasons in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act and rules framed thereunder, and if not, what is its effect? d. Whether the respondent is an employee of the corporation and if so whether the accident has occurred during and in the course of employment? e. Whether the compensation awarded is otherwise legally justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? d. Whether the respondent is an employee of the corporation and if so whether the accident has occurred during and in the course of employment? e. Whether the compensation awarded is otherwise legally justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? f. Whether without determining the nature of injury and without there being any evidence with regard to loss in earning capacity, the compensation can be granted? g. Whether the award is based upon no evidence? h. Whether the Commissioner can determine the loss in earning capacity, in the absence of same being determined by qualified medical practitioner? i. Whether medical expenses can be granted in the facts of the case? 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned Award. 4. Counsel has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of appeal. 5. From the perusal of award, it is evident that on 22.12.1999 respondent No. 1 filed claim petition under section 3 of Employees Compensation Act on account of injury sustained by him during the course of employment on 2.11.1999 against appellant; respondent was working as labourer on Mahan work in nallah Basti @ Rs. 70/- per day; during work one scants hit both hands of petitioner, resulting in fractures of his both thumbs; he was permanently disabled; the age of respondent was 22 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/- pm. 6. Appellant appeared and filed objections, and stated that claimant was 40 years and wages was 20-25 per day. Respondent No. 1 appeared as witness and also produced Farooq Ahmed and Dr. N.D. Dar as witnesses. Doctor has stated that claimant has suffered 45% of permanent disability. 7. Appellant produced one witness Abdul Qayoom, an official who has stated that 30-40 labourers were working at that time. In cross examination stated that he was chowkidar and where was work done he has no knowledge. 8. Court below after conclusion of proceeding categorically held that claimant has proved that he was working as laborer on relevant day at relevant place with appellant herein; he was earning wages 1,350/- pm minimum at that time; his age was 22 years; disability of claimant was 45%-60% of concerned limb. 9. Court below took total disablement for compensation as 30% of body and so granted compensation of Rs. 53,792/- with interest @ 12% pa from the date of accident till deposit is made. 10. 9. Court below took total disablement for compensation as 30% of body and so granted compensation of Rs. 53,792/- with interest @ 12% pa from the date of accident till deposit is made. 10. The objective of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923, as defined in the Act, is to provide for the payment of compensation by certain employers to their employees for injury caused to them or to the legal heirs of deceased employee, by accident while in employment. If an employee contracts an occupational disease while in employment, it is also treated under the Act as injury caused by accident. The real purpose behind the enactment of such a law can be understood as follows: Huge number of the young human resource of the country is employed in factories, manufacturing units and various menial jobs. It is the responsibility of the employers of this workforce, to provide a safe and healthy work environment for these workers. If a worker is injured or dies on the job due to the hazards related to the occupation his dependents or the worker him/herself is not in a position to fight the employer for compensation. The employer and worker may not reach a reasonable amount when it comes to compensation in such cases. The employer's liability cannot be unlimited, thus to limit the employer's liability. 11. Thus, the Act provided a mediator between the employee and the employer for resolution of employment-related disputes arising due to accidents at the workplace. This Act enshrines complete procedure for providing compensation to employees or dependants, who suffer injury or fatal injuries during course of employment. Order of compensation passed by officer under this Act is appealable in terms of section 30 of the Act. Section 30 reads as under:- "Appeals. This Act enshrines complete procedure for providing compensation to employees or dependants, who suffer injury or fatal injuries during course of employment. Order of compensation passed by officer under this Act is appealable in terms of section 30 of the Act. Section 30 reads as under:- "Appeals. - (1) An 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; (aa) 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 dependants of a deceased [employee], 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 sub-section (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: Provided 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 lie 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: 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." 12. From bare perusal of this provision, it is manifest that appeal is maintainable only on the substantial question of law. 13. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days." 12. From bare perusal of this provision, it is manifest that appeal is maintainable only on the substantial question of law. 13. Learned counsel for appellant has framed questions of law in memo of appeal that; Whether without determining the nature of injury as per the Workmen Compensation Act, can an award be passed for the grant of compensation as has been done in this case; Whether the award passed in this case satisfy the requirement of being declared as a judgment in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act and rules framed there under; Whether there are any issues framed and whether there are any findings on issue wise and the findings supported with reasons in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act and rules framed there under, and if not, what is its effect; Whether the respondent is an employee of the corporation and if so whether the accident has occurred during and in the course of employment; Whether the compensation awarded is otherwise legally justified in the facts and circumstances of the case; Whether without determining the nature of injury and without there being any evidence with regard to loss in earning capacity, the compensation can be granted; ether the award is based upon no evidence; Whether the Commissioner can determine the loss in earning capacity, in the absence of same being determined by qualified medical practitioner. 14. Bare perusal of these law points formulated in memo of appeal, it is evident that all these are not substantial questions of law, but are questions of facts. Questions of facts cannot be treated as substantial question of law. So cannot be appreciated in this appeal. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, mean 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 the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. 15. 15. The point for discussion raised by appellant that the statement of the Doctor; whereas on the one hand was unrealistic, unreliable, inadmissible against medical jurisprudence as well as the law and guidelines laid down in the schedule of the Act, on the other hand, it could not have formed the basis for awarding compensation in favour of respondent and that it was mandatory for ALC to first identify the nature of the injury and then assess compensation in accordance with law as mode of assessment of compensation is different for different injuries. This point is not debatable, because court below has already taken total disablement of respondent for compensation as 30% of body, whereas as per doctor, disability of claimant was 45%-60% of concerned limb. Further, when injury is apparently visible, then compensation can be assessed on that basis after taking judicial notice. Technicalities should not come in way, while granting compensation because it will definitely oppose the basic purpose of bona fide legislation. 16. The purpose of section 30 of the Act, thereby maintainability of appeal only on substantial question of law, is that poor employees should not suffer in getting compensation due to prolonged litigation of appeal like in civil case where 1st appeal is maintainable on facts also. In present case already respondent has been fighting since 1999 and now we are in 2017, so already very purpose of speedy trial has been forfeited. 17. In view of above, I do not find any substantial question of law in appeal. This appeal is dismissed at admission stage. Copy be sent to court below for information.