The liability of the principal under S.12 and the restricted scope of appeals under S.30, considering the influence of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Indian Constitution on the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

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 exercise powers under S.30 unless I am satisfied on this jurisdictional point of a substantial question of law. It must be noticed that a question of fact however substantial, cannot masquerade as a question of law, and further that any question of law cannot automatically be treated as a substantial one even if the amount involved is substantial or the argument pressed is vehement. The expression 'substantial question of law' is not new to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but finds a place in S.110 of the Civil Procedure Code and Art.133 of the Indian Constitution. May be, that the meaning of words may change depending on the context in which they occur and the statute which uses them. Even so, there must be something substantial about a substantial question of law. Out of deference to the words of the statute 1 must remind myself that what is contemplated is not a question of law alone; it must also possess the attribute of substantiality. If it is of great public importance or if it arises so frequently as to affect a large class of people or is so basic to the operation of the Act itself, one may designate the question of law as substantial. But, where it is Covered already by precedents or the law on that aspect is well settled, the mere difficulty of applying the facts to that law cannot make it a substantial question of law.

3. The Act with which I am concerned relates to workers, and the entire purpose of the statute is to see that the weaker section of the community, namely, the working class is not caught in the meshes of litigation which involves a protracted course of appeal. That is why the statute creates a special tribunal and provides only for a restricted appeal. The benignant object of saving the worker from long and expensive litigation would be defeated if a loose interpretation were to be given to the proviso under S.30 and all kinds of appeals, merely because there is some point which has the look of law, are admitted. A highly restrictive meaning has to be imported because of the very legislative purpose and the class of litigation covered, even apart from the drastic expression used in the proviso. In this context, Part IV of the Indian Constitution serves as a perspective while construing the Workmen's Compensation Act. May be that pre-constitution statutes were interpreted in a particular way by courts on certain assumptions of the State's functions at that time. Today it is absolutely plain that the Directive Principles of State Policy, though not enforceable by a court, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, and must inform the judicial mind when interpreting statutes calculated to promote the welfare of the working class. In fact, Art.42 enjoins upon the State to make provision for securing just