( 1 ) THE Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport corporation, Mahesana Division, Mahesana, by this appeal under the Workmens compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1923) challenges the award of the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act at Kalol made in Workmens Compensation Application No. 92 of 1993 on 1-6-1996.

( 2 ) THIS award has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant before this Court on the ground that the claimant-respondent since deceased was only an Apprentice appointed under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 and there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the claimant, the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the award in his favour. The second contention is that the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has committed serious error or illegality in determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimant by taking his monthly wages to be of Rs. 924-30. This calculation could have been made only on the basis of taking the amount Rs. 380. 00 p. m. as his wages which the appellant was paying as stipend to the claimant. Lastly, it is contended that the accident has resulted because of negligence of the claimant himself and he was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of Workmens compensation Act, 1923. Carrying this contention further, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant-apprentice has to perform the duty under the supervision of mechanic and as per his instructions he has to act. He was not required to do any work independently but still on 1-8-1992 on his own, independently and negligently performing his duties he met with this accident as a result caused injuries to him and he is not entitled for any compensation.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Vishin raised firstly a legal question that under Sec. 30 of the Act, 1923 an appeal against the award of Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, awarding compensation to the claimant does lie to this Court only where a substantial question of law does arise therein. Whatever contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are at the most can be taken to be only questions of law or fact and not the substantial questions of law. In this appeal as not a single substantial question of law arises, the same deserves to be dismissed. She has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. The contention is that to this appeal, though appellant has accompanied a certificate issued by the Commissioner under the Act, 1923, Kalol certifying therein that the amount of compensation awarded under the impugned award has been deposited with it by the appellant, that certificate is of no value or worth as it appears to have been issued by the Commissioner for Workmens compensation, Kalol only for audit purpose.

( 4 ) ON merits, Ms. Vishin, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has not committed any error, much less, an illegality in passing of the award in favour of the claimant since deceased. Even if the claimant is taken to be appointed only as an apprentice under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 still he was entitled for compensation for the injury caused to him as a result of the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. The assessment and determination of amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant for injury sustained by him as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment has to be made not on the basis of the figure of the stipend he was getting but his salary or wages has to be notionally arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the act. 1923 and the Act, 1961. Replying to the last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Vi