JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sawaimadhopur (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in Claim Case No.E.C.A. No.21/2012, titled as “Mandroop Vs. Shankar lal & Anr.”, whereby the learned Commissioner while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,740/-along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of incident as compensation in favour of the claimant-Mandroop. The learned Commissioner has also imposed fine of Rs.2,00,000/- upon the non-claimant No.1-Shankar Lal. 2. CMA No.2797/2013 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, whereas CMA No.3748/2013 has been filed by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the insurance company’) challenging the judgment & award dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner on the various grounds. 3. CMA No.2797/2013-Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly deducted 50% of the deceased’s income, whereas the deceased’s income was Rs.4,000/-per month at the relevant point of time. So, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 ACJ 29 and Dr. Harish Kumar vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Utt 1030 and Bhikha Ram vs. Sunil Kumar & ors. reported in 2022 (2) CCR 784 (Raj.). 5. CMA No.3748/2013-learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimant failed to submit any evidence that the deceased was employee of the respondent No.1-Shankar Lal. Learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly awarded the claim amount in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits that the appeal filed by the claimant is on findings of the fact. So, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. So, the appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the insurance company has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. So, the appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the insurance company has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019(11) SCC 514 . 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2013 including the documents available on the record. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court. 8. In the opinion of this Court also, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 . 9. It has been held in Para No. 8 & 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. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 . 9. It has been held in Para No. 8 & 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 lumpsum 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;or (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. Under the scheme 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. "Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 . It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 as under: "9. 10. "Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 . 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 sue(s) 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. 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 "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. 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 "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi", reported in 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 wide of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985(1) WLN 455 , this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is as 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 been 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. Itis 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 upholds these findings. 15. Since the appeals are not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in these appeal and the same are dismissed. 16. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.