JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 16.3.1998 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Additional Labour Commissioner, Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’) in W.C. Case No. 31 of 1994 awarding compensation of Rs. 83,192/- with interest at the rate of 6% for death of sole bread winner of respondents. 3. Recently the Apex Court in such matters has shown its agony for litigating against a poor family who has lost the sole bread winner. 4. The decision of the Apex Court in Golla Rajanna vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and in Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018, precludes me from entering into the factual data under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. However, as learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length and substantial question of law which has been framed by the counsel for which, this Court while issuing notice did not even admit the appeal and did not frame any question of law way back on 15.5.1998. The respondent for a period of more than 24 years has not been served. 5. The finding of fact goes to show that the deceased was directed to go at the instance of the officer of the appellant. The finding of fact that he was never served with any termination letter which has culminated into his termination belies the theory put forward by the employer that he was no longer in service. The incident occurred on 28.5.1994, the amount of E.S.I. contribution has been deducted even during this period is a finding of fact. 6. Submission of Sri Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, cannot be countenanced that the deceased was not the employee of the appellant. There is no perversity pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. The learned Commissioner has rightly not accepted the submissions of appellant-owner. The family had given notice to which also there was no rebuttal by the employer that the deceased was not in service. On the contrary, the record shows that he was getting Rs. 1000/- per month. 7. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 16.3.1998 cannot be found fault with. The family had given notice to which also there was no rebuttal by the employer that the deceased was not in service. On the contrary, the record shows that he was getting Rs. 1000/- per month. 7. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 16.3.1998 cannot be found fault with. The question of law framed are in fact the question of facts. The provisions of Section 53 of Employees State Insurance Act cannot be made applicable. There was no bar as it was an objection which has been held to be made in eye of law. The relationship of master servant continues. These are all basically the questions of facts which are answered against the appellant. 8. 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 vs. 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. 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. 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.” 9. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. No. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. vs. 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 vs. 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.” 10. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed. The amount deposited, if any, would be remitted to the family members with the interest accrued till today. 11. This Court is thankful to Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, that he has assisted this court even without his client sending him any instructions.