JUDGMENT : (R. KALAIMATHI, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 19.10.2023 passed in E.C.No.37 of 2022 by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Dindigul. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 3. At trial, to substantiate the claim, on the claimant side, the claimant has been examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked. On the first respondent side, one witness (Suresh son of Nagamuthu) was examined and no document was marked. On the second respondent/Insurance Company side, two witnesses (Raj and V.S.Sekar) were examined and three documents were marked.Ex.R3 is the copy of policy of insurance. 4. Upon consideration, the learned Workmen Compensation Authority has held that on the date of accident, the policy was in force and the deceased was working under the first respondent as cleaner and therefore, the second respondent, who is the insurer of the first respondent, was made liable to pay compensation. 5. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 ACJ 1 (SC) and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 ACJ 29 (SC), the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is confined to the substantial question of law and it cannot re- appreciate the evidence and under the scheme of the Act, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Commissioner has given its finding based on a sound appreciation of evidence. 6. Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is extracted hereunder, for easy understanding: 30. Appeals: 1. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Commissioner has given its finding based on a sound appreciation of evidence. 6. Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is extracted hereunder, for easy understanding: 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 4-A; (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 it 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:’ ... (11) Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 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 ints own findings on percentage of disability for which als othere is no basis. Thewhole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section30 of the Act.” 7. It is also relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (cited supra) as follows: “9. Thewhole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section30 of the Act.” 7. It is also relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (cited supra) as follows: “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 dependents 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 lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question 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 be 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.” 8. 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.” 8. Hence, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration: “Whether the employee compensation commissioner directed the insurance company to pay compensation for an employee under liability only policy when there is no premium paid for employee?” 9. From the records, it transpires that the deceased was employed in connection with laying of pipeline with the help of JCB and he was working as a cleaner at the relevant point of time.Ex.R1 is the copy of a liability only policy. 10. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Workmen Compensation Authority which is extracted hereunder: 11. The Commissioner has discussed in detail and concluded that the deceased is a worker under the first respondent. He was engaged in drinking water pipeline laying work through JCB bearing registration No.TN-69-AZ-1321. No doubt, he was engaged as a cleaner in the said work. During the course of work only, the accident happened. 12.In the given circumstances, he can very well be brought under the category of third party. The Premium for the third party, a sum of Rs.6,847/- is paid. In such view of the matter, the liability saddled on the insurance company cannot legally be found fault with. 13. In the light of the aforestated discussions and observations, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant herein. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. No costs. Connected, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing necessary application before the Commissioner.