JUDGMENT : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2003 of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (for short, 'Commissioner') in W.C. No. 10 of 2002(F). 2. The 2nd respondent before the Commissioner is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 were the applicants (claimants) and the 1st respondent before the Commissioner is the 5th respondent in this appeal. 3. Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad, Son of Sri Pedda Obulesu was a Village Electricity Worker at Yadiki Gram Panchayat. The Ist respondent is the wife, the 4th respondent is the mother and the respondents 2 and 3 are the daughter and son respectively of Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad. He died due to a fall from an electric pole while working on it near Ankalamma street, Yadiki village, when he was attending to repairs of LT & HT lines managed by the appellant, who is representing A.P. Transco. 4. Cr. No. 43 of 1999 of Yadiki Police Station was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on a complaint by Sri Ramesh Babu, brother of the deceased, in respect of the above incident. This incident, according to the respondents 1 to 4 occurred during and in the course of employment for the appellant as well as the 5th respondent. 5. On such basis, they claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the appellant as well as the 5th respondent on the ground that the deceased was being paid monthly wages of Rs. 600/-, by the appellant through the 5th respondent. 6. The 5th respondent filed a counter before the commissioner stating that the deceased was being paid Rs. 600/- per month towards salary and Rs. 600/- as grant-in-aid paid by the appellant. It also admitted the nature of the incident and being the cause for death of the deceased while contending that he was working under the directions of the appellant. 7. The appellant also filed a detailed counter before the Commissioner denying the entire incident as well as the deceased being employed on its behalf as a worker. It also admitted the nature of the incident and being the cause for death of the deceased while contending that he was working under the directions of the appellant. 7. The appellant also filed a detailed counter before the Commissioner denying the entire incident as well as the deceased being employed on its behalf as a worker. Disputing that the incident occurred leading to death of the deceased during and in the course of employment on its behalf, the appellant contended that the deceased was employed as Village Electricity Worker under the 5th respondent and thus, denied the jural relationship of 'master and servant' between itself and the deceased at the time of the accident. It also contended that attending to repairs at the electric pole at the time of the accident by the deceased was in violation of appointment orders issued to the deceased and thus, it denied its liability while also questioning the quantum of compensation claimed. 8. On the material and pleadings, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry. "1. Whether the deceased was in the employment of the OP and whether the deceased died during the course of his employment and worker within the meaning of the Act? 2. If yes, to what compensation the applicants are entitled? 3. Who are the dependants and legal heirs to receive the compensation amount?" 9. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent examined himself as A.W. 1 and marked Ex. A1 to Ex. A9. No evidence was let in on behalf of the 5th respondent. Whereas R.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the appellant and did not mark any document on its behalf. 10. Basing on such material, the Commissioner accepted the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 holding that at the time of the incident the deceased was working for the appellant and that it occurred during and in the course of such employment. Thus holding, the appellant as well as the 5th respondent were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,19,940/- to the respondents 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in default to pay interest at 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the accident till realisation. 11. The appellant has questioned this order in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raising various grounds. 12. 1,19,940/- to the respondents 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in default to pay interest at 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the accident till realisation. 11. The appellant has questioned this order in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raising various grounds. 12. Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, addressed arguments on its behalf. None represented the respondents 1 to 4 or the 5th respondent in this appeal though they are served notices. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is maintainable in the manner presented and if it violates Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act? 2. Whether there existed relationship of 'workman and employer' between the deceased and the appellant on the date of the accident? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and appropriate? 4. To what relief? Point No. 1:- 14. The appellant has presented this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation upon a claim presented by the respondents 1 to 4 under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. An appeal against the order of the Commissioner has to be presented under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under: "30. 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; .............................. Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal...............:....................................................................." 15. In terms thereof, unless the substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, no appeal shall be entertained. It is for the appellant to set out in the grounds of appeal such substantial questions of law, which require consideration and determination in the appeal. 16. As seen from the memorandum of appeal, the appellant did not set out substantial questions of law required to be determined in this appeal. Grounds as such set out in the memorandum, questioning the order under appeal, cannot be elevated to the status of substantial questions of law. 17. 16. As seen from the memorandum of appeal, the appellant did not set out substantial questions of law required to be determined in this appeal. Grounds as such set out in the memorandum, questioning the order under appeal, cannot be elevated to the status of substantial questions of law. 17. Therefore, on this ground alone this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable, since there is infraction of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 18. Hence, the same is incompetent nor can lie. 19. Thus, this point is answered. Point No. 2:- 20. The deceased Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad was a Village Electricity Worker in Yadiki Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute that he died on account of the injuries received at about 3.30 p.m. on 22.07.1999 due to fall from an electric pole where he was working. It was near Ankalamma street in Yadiki village this accident occurred. The death of Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad is not in dispute nor the manner in which he died, as deposed by his wife as A.W. 1, is seriously disputed on behalf of the 5th respondent or the appellant. In fact, the 5th respondent admitted in the counter the nature of death suffered by Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad. Thus, this fact is established. 21. It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 before the Commissioner that Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad was working for the appellant though he was Village Electricity Worker within the Gram Panchayat of Yadiki. The material on record discloses that he was in fact working for the appellant. 22. Sri K. Siva Prasad Reddy, Additional Divisional Engineer, was examined on behalf of the appellant before the Commissioner. Though he deposed that the deceased was employed by the 5th respondent, the testimony of Sri K. Siva Prasad Reddy reflects that he, in fact attended on the deceased when he was admitted in the hospital. Ex. A4 is the salary certificate disclosing that the deceased was receiving salary during the period from 01.07.1999 to 31.07.1999 and that he received such wages from the appellant. Issuance of Ex. A4 by A.P. Transco was also admitted by Sri Siva Prasad Reddy. 23. When these circumstances are taken into consideration, the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was working for the appellant cannot be brushed aside. 24. Ex. Issuance of Ex. A4 by A.P. Transco was also admitted by Sri Siva Prasad Reddy. 23. When these circumstances are taken into consideration, the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was working for the appellant cannot be brushed aside. 24. Ex. A6 is the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, to which the appellant did not issue any reply. However, it was replied to as seen from Ex. A7 by Yadiki Gram Panchayat (R5). In this reply notice the Gram Panchayat stated that the deceased was appointed by A.P. Transco and that he was always attending to the duties of A.P. Transco which was paying him wages. It also makes clear that Yadiki Gram Panchayat did not pay any wages to the deceased. 25. These circumstances were taken into consideration by the Commissioner in recording a finding that there subsisted the jural relationship of 'workman and employer' between the deceased Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad and the appellant. 26. Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the very nature of employment of the deceased as Village Electricity Worker clearly indicated that he was working for the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat and that he was not directly employed by the appellant nor appointed by it. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that no proof was laid before the Commissioner in that context to prove the jural relationship. 27. However, the material discussed above clearly proved such jural relationship between the deceased and the appellant. Therefore, the contentions so advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the -appellant, cannot stand. 28. Considering the wages of the deceased at Rs. 1,200/-, applying appropriate factor at 199.40, the Commissioner arrived at a compensation of Rs. 1,19,640/-. 29. The respondents 1 to 4 did not question the order of the Commissioner seeking enhancement of compensation or otherwise. Therefore, in as much as the Commissioner has applied the right indicators to award such compensation basing on the material, it has to be held that the order under appeal requires no interference. Thus, this point is answered. Point No. 3: 30. The Commissioner has discussed the material on record in proper perspective and recorded appropriate findings; There is absolutely no requirement to interfere with the same. Thus, this point is answered. Point No. 4: 31. Thus, this point is answered. Point No. 3: 30. The Commissioner has discussed the material on record in proper perspective and recorded appropriate findings; There is absolutely no requirement to interfere with the same. Thus, this point is answered. Point No. 4: 31. In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed confirming the order of the learned Commissioner. 32. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur in W.C. No. 10 of 2002(F) dated 31.12.2003 is confirmed. The Commissioner is directed to release the balance amount, if any, to respondents 1 to 4, strictly as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act without insisting for any security. As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.