JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal U/s.30 of Workmen's Compensation Act has been filed by the appellant claiming the following reliefs :- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Bhilwara may kindly be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the claimant respondents no. 1 to 3 may kindly be dismissed with costs throughout." 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 3.7.2009 when the deceased Kailash Chandra was working at village Lasadiya received electric current as a result whereof he died. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently raised an issue that deceased Kailash Chandra was not an employee of the appellant Corporation and in fact, he was engaged on contractual basis as Gramin Vidhyut Parthinidhi (Micro Feeder Franchisee) for repair works and removal of complaints in the L.T. Line/System at village Bachhkera. Thus, he was not the employee of the Corporation and merely a contractual employee. 4. XXX XXX XXX XXX 4.1 Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi, (2005) 6 JT 167 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained. 4.2 Counsel for the respondent has further shown judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi widow of Mool Chand & Anr., (1985) 1 WLN(Raj) 455 wherein this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there was a question of public importance and there was no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law was arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :- "8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial questions of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved. 9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. 9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act." 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, the question raised by the appellant that the deceased was not its employee is only a factual question and does not amount to substantial question of law. However, this Court finds that once it has been established that the deceased was working, may be on contractual basis, for the appellant Corporation discharging the duty of repairs and removal of complaints of electricity line, which is the prime job of the appellant corporation, then he shall be entitled for receiving the compensation. This Court further finds that the appeal is not qualifying to have any substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference in is called for in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. All pending applications also stand dismissed.