JUDGMENT : (Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) : Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of this appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the appellant who is an employee has challenged the finding by the Apellate Court in Appeal No. 261 of 1988 awarding loss of earning capacity at 30%. 3. The main bone of contention is that appellant-employee sustained employment injury on 31.12.1987 in his right ear. The respondent had an obligatory duty to provide for the loss but they did not provie for the same. The appellant suffered disablement and was not able to work. The appellant according to him was mentally pressurized and his loss of hearing capacity was 40 dots and loss of earning capacity was same but Commissioner has not properly evaluated the same. It is further submitted that at the time of accident occurred and he was sustained injury he was aged 35 years of age. The award of the E.S.I Court is assailed and it is contended that this is an error which is apparent on the face of record. It is further submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for 10 days and the medical board did not hold him to be suffering from any loss, so he moved to Appellate Court. 4. The judgement of the First Appellate Court is sought to be sustained by the counsel for the respondents. 5. The order challenged has been properly scrutinized by the Court below. The fact that the Commissioner has given cogent reasons that he had suffered 40% of deafness but therefore, it would be rated at 30% for loss for earning capacity. 6. The appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. v. Divisional Manager and another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). 7. I am supported in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under: ''15. 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. 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 reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law. 16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts. 17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. We accordingly uphold these findings.'' 8. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. v. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows: ''The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. v. Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows ''the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis.'' 9. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis.'' 9. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The questions of law framed are answered against appellant. In fact the questions raised are the questions of fact and not of law. 10. This Court is thankful to both the learned counsels for ably assisting this Court. 11. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.