Order : (MANEESH SHARMA, J.) 1. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Ajmer and Judge, Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Camp Beawar in case No. ECA(F) 131/2015, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal after the claimant filed application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act while stating that deceased Ashok Kumar was working as driver under the employment of Nimba Nath(respondent No.1) driving his Tractor bearing No.RJ-01-R-2915). 3. It is further stated that on 24.10.2004 deceased was discharging his duties as driver and while discharging his duties he met with an accident and sustained injuries and later on he expired. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to seek compensation of Rs.5,42,275/- as per the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. 4. Respondent No.2 filed reply to the claim petition while stating that deceased was driving his own tractor and no relationship of employer and employee could be established and it was further urged that the insurance policy has been obtained by concealing the ownership documents, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any compensation. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act framed following issues:- ^1- vk;k e`rd Jh v'kksd dqekj jkoy vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds fu;kstu ,oa fu;a=.k esa cgSfl;r pkyd ds in ij okgu V?sDVj ua- vkj-ts- 01 vkj 2915 ij fn- 24-10-2004 dks dk;Z djrs gq, ,oa fu;kstu ds nkSjku ?kfVr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr gqvk \ 2- vk;k e`rd Jh v'kksd dqekj jkoy dh oDr nq?kZVuk vk;q iPphl o"kZ Fkh ,oa ekfld osru :i;s ikap gtkj Fkk \ 3- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk okgu V?sDVj uacj vkj-ts- 01 vkj 2915 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh M?kbZfoax ykblsal Fkk \ 4- vk;k fd izkFkhZx.k Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gka rks fdlls ,oa fdruh jkf'k \ 5- vU; vuqrks"k^^ 6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant Indira examined herself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.8. 7. The Insurance company in order to convert the averments of the claim petition and the evidence so adduced examined NAW-1 Gajanand Khatik and produced documents Ex.NA1 to Ex. NA6. 8. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant Indira examined herself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.8. 7. The Insurance company in order to convert the averments of the claim petition and the evidence so adduced examined NAW-1 Gajanand Khatik and produced documents Ex.NA1 to Ex. NA6. 8. After hearing arguments of both parties the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act has arrived at a conclusion that deceased-Ashok Kumar was owner of the tractor- in-question and he cannot be said to be working as a driver under the employment of Nimbanath and in the absence of any proof about the relationship between the appellant and Nimbanath, the legal representatives of the deceased-Ashok Kumar are not entitled to claim any compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act committed perversity while dismissing the claim petition as the vehicle was insured and legal representatives of the deceased-Ashok Kumar are entitled to get the compensation as deceased was working under the employment of Nimbanath as a driver. 10. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and perused the record. 11. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the deceased-Ashok Kumar himself was owner of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that he was driver under the employment of Nimbanath and claimants are failed to prove the factum of relationship of employer and employee between the deceased-Ashok Kumar and Nimbanath. While going through the record of the case, it is also evident that claimants have admitted the fact that earlier claim petition was filed under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal but intentionally the appellants have not placed any document in this behalf. Therefore, adverse inference is drawn against the appellants. 12. From the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove the relationship of the employer and employee between the deceased-Ashok Kumar and Nimbanath and there is no illegality been committed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act in the rejection of the claim application. 13. Argument raised by the counsel for the appellants-claimants are based on finding of fact which cannot be appreciated as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr. 13. Argument raised by the counsel for the appellants-claimants are based on finding of fact which cannot be appreciated as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr. " reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 , held that the finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated while deciding the appeal against the award and the appeal filed against the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved. 14. 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. 15. In the opinion of this Court, 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 (supra) . 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. 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 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;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)" 16. 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. 17. 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. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. 17. 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 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." 18. 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." 18. In "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. 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. 19. In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wife 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 a question of public importance or substantial question of law is involved, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "8. Moreover, under section 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." 20. Having gone through the findings of the Commissioner I am of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and there is no substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal and the question so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is question of fact regarding which the final authority is Commissioner, who has recorded finding against the claimants. 21. In view of this discussion made hereinabove there is no perversity found in the impugned order, therefore, the present appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. 22. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.