JUDGMENT : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2010 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, District Kota (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in claim case No. WC/F/23/2006, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,16,865/- with interest to the claimants. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is that "whether appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') is maintainable without framing any substantial question of law?" 3. This controversy is no more res integra as the issue involved in this appeal has already been decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 615/2007 titled as "The National Insurance Co. Ltd.. v. Smt. Mohini Devi and Ors." by observing thus: "Bare perusal of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 indicates that no appeal shall lie against any order passed by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. It is the settled principle of law that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his legal representatives sue his employer to claim compensation under this Act. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner shall lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not, depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with the reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramsakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi, reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167 that without formulating the substantial question of law, the appeal cannot be sustained. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gollarajanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager & Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and also in the case of North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Sujatha, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 that the appeal filed against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in the same. v. The Divisional Manager & Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and also in the case of North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Sujatha, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 that the appeal filed against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in the same. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable in absence of framing any substantial question of law.." 4. Hence, in view of the settled position of law and in view of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923, this appeal is not maintainable in absence of framing of any substantial question of law. 5. In the result, the instant appeal as well as the stay application stand dismissed. 6. All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 7. The learned Commissioner is directed to release the balance amount to the claimants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.