HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3142 of 2012 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Subash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and Shri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ashutosh Mishra holding brief of Shri Anirudh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.5.2012 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur in Case No.WCC 5/2005 (Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.) whereby the Labour Commissioner has awarded Rs.3,49,923/- alongwith 12% interest as compensation to the claimant/respondent. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent no.1 filed a claim petition before the Employees' Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of her husband in an accident occurred on on 10.7.2004. The husband of the claimant was working as a driver of bus No. UP 53 T 2873. Said claim petition was allowed by Employees' Compensation Commissioner vide its impugned judgement and an amount of Rs.3,49,923/- was awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that Employees' Compensation Commissioner has failed to appreciate the available evidence on record and has recorded findings against the settled laws as well as the available facts. It was submitted that respondent had miserably failed to prove relationship of employer and employee between Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Subash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anirudh Kumar Misra, Shambhavi Nandan, Shashi Kant Upadhyay The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Smt. Usha Devi And Others .....Respondent(s) the owner of the bus in question and claimant respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial question of law in this appeal:- "I. Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was relationship of employer and employee between the U.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus and the deceased is illegal and based on miss-appreciation of evidence? II. Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the injuries which caused the death of the deceased arose during the course of employment? III. Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in applying the factor corresponding to age 34 instead of age 36? IV. Whether the judgment passed by the learned commissioner is sustainable in the eyes of law without complying with rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules 1924? V. Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in fastening the liability upon the appellant despite the fact that the owner of the Bus has committed breach of insurance policy inasmuch as the Bus was plied without valid permit? VI. Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in awarding interest one month after the date of accident? VII. Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in fastening the liability upon the appellant to pay interest despite the fact that the appellant has been impleaded by the claimant/respondent in November, 2010?" 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that this appeal as such is not maintainable because all the questions raised by the appellant are questions of fact and they do not constitute substantive questions of law. All the issues are disputed questions of fact which were appreciated, determined and thereby decided by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner. The issues of fact decided by Employees' Compensation Commissioner cannot be challenged in an appeal under Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. If any such appeal raising questions of fact is filed, the same is liable to be dismissed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport FAFO No. 3142 of 2012 2 Corporation vs. Smt. Sujata 2018 (4) TAC 673 (SC) and Golla Rajanna etc. etc. vs. Divisional Manager and Another 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is very much evident that the grounds of appeal do not consist any substantive questions of law. Questions regarding the relationship between the employer and employee as well as injuries causing death of the deceased are purely questions of fact and cannot be entertained in an appeal filed under Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra) held that such issues are essentially the questions of fact. Once they are proved either way, the findings they are on record, are the findings of fact. Similarly in Golla Rajanna (supra), it was held that determination of nature of injury is purely a question of fact. 9. Hence, this appeal, which is based on purely a question of fact, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and award is upheld. September 11, 2026 SK FAFO No. 3142 of 2012 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad