JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. In view of pendency of this appeal since 1990, pending (sic) is dispensed with.
2. The appellant-employer has challenged the Judgment and Order, dated September 21, 1989, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad and Ex officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in the application W.C.P, No.7 of 1987 filed by the applicant to claim workmen’s compensation for the employment injury sustained by him during the course of his employment with the appellant-employer on October 21, 1985. It was his case that on the date of the accident he was working on the thrashing machine and while so working he sustained injury and lost his left hand from elbow which was required to be amputated.
3. It was the case of appellant-employer that the injured applicant was not employed by him and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation. It was his case that the father of the applicant was in his employment and not the son, i.e. the injured applicant. It was submitted by him that on the date of the accident the applicant had come to the work place to call his father and he started working, without any permission and in the process he got himself injured. Both the parties adduced evidence before the learned Commissioner. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence the learned Commissioner has not accepted the case of the appellant-employer that the injured applicant was not in his employment. It is further more pertinent to note that the appellant-employer did not step in the witness box to say on oath, whether he had actually employed the injured applicant or not. He had sent his power of attorney to the Court. It is possible that the appellant employer might have employed the injured applicant. On the basis of the oral evidence before him, the learned Commissioner has come to a fact finding that the injured applicant was also employed on the thrashing machine along with his father. The finding and the conclusion of the learned Commissioner are based on factual evidence before him. He has come to the said conclusion which cannot be said to be baseless or perverse. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner. Under Section 30 of the Act a substantial question of law is required to be canvassed. In the present appeal, I do not find any substantial question of law. In the aforesaid circumstance, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.