S.P. TAMBAT Vs. RAMSAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Ramswaroop respondent applied to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the compensation of an injury he sustained while he was employed as a workman by S.P Tambat, Appellant. Tambat denied the liability on the ground that the applicant was not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner held that Ramswaroop was a workman and aggrieved by this interlocutory order, Tambat has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Worksmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) THE orders against which an appeal is provided in the Act are specified in sub -clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 30 of the Act. The present interlocutory order, it is admitted, does not fall under any of these sub -clauses. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that according to the Proviso of Section 30, which says "no appeal shall lie against any order" means that each and every order of the Commissioner under the Act is appealable. But I am afraid this is not the correct interpretation. What the proviso means is that where an appeal lies according to the sub -clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), it will be further necessary to see that the appeal is on a substantial question of law. In this view of the matter, the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed.