JUDGMENT : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. Instant appeal has been submitted against impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2015 (the date was erroneously typed as 29.12.2014 in the impugned award) passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Jaipur District, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Commissioner’) in WCC case No. 75/2013 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent was allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,860/- to the claimant-respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2015, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants have failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee and without considering this fact, the learned Commissioner has determined the relationship of employer and employee without their being any evidence available on the record. 4. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was found to be in a drunken position and he was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor. He further submits that as per the claim petition the deceased was holding the license to ply the light motor vehicle and he was not having any license to drive the commercial vehicle. Lastly, learned counsel submits that under these facts and circumstances the impugned judgment passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submits that it is the settled position of law that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be re-appreciated by this Court as per Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna vs. The Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha, 2019 (11) SCC 514 . 6. Learned counsel further submits that this fact was not argued before the learned Commissioner that the driver was plying the vehicle under the influence of liquor. 6. Learned counsel further submits that this fact was not argued before the learned Commissioner that the driver was plying the vehicle under the influence of liquor. Lastly, he submits that the learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent and on the basis of appreciation of evidence, the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the award, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and the documents available on record. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra), wherein it has been held in Para No. 8 and 10 as under: “8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 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. (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 workman, 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. (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. (Emphasis supplied) 10. (Emphasis supplied) 10. Under the cement of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question 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. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 10. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra). It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 as under: “9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, 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 dependants 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 LRs sues his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. 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. 11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law. 12. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law. 12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he 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.” 11. In the case of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi vs. Chhatra Devi, JT 2005 (6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained. 12. In M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi W/o Mool Chand and Another, 1985 (1) WLN 455 , this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is a question of public importance and there is no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law is 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 question 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. 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.” 13. 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.” 13. It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. 14. This Court 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. This Court accordingly uphold these findings. 15. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 16. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 17. All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.