1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. No. 79/1969 directing payment of Rs. 2, 940/-as compensation under S.3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, read with S.4 of the Act and Schedule.4 thereunder. It would appear that the respondent was a carpenter working on the premises of the appellant's workshop. He came by an accident and lost the use of his thumb. He was removed to the hospital, was treated and cured to some little extent, his ability to work having been substantially lost. Compensation, worked out on the basis of 30% loss of the earning capacity and assuming a monthly earning of Rs. 130/-, was awarded by the Commissioner. The major question argued with considerable persistence by counsel for the appellant was that there was no evidence justifying a finding that the respondent was the workman of the appellant. I shall proceed to consider the substance, if any, in this contention.

2. There is an initial obstacle in the way of the appellant because the first proviso to S.20, which confers the appellate power on the High Court, restricts appeals to cases where a substantial question of law is involved. I cannot e