The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, along with the scope of Section 30 in entertaining substantial questions of law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, dated 6. 6. 1997 whereby the claim of appellant has been dismissed.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, facts of the case are that deceased Molai Sahu was employed with respondent as driver-cum-labourer. He was receiving Rs. 40 per day while driving the tractor and on other days he was getting Rs. 30 per day. At the time of the accident, on 22. 8. 1994, he was 26 years old.

( 3 ) THE appellant, wife of deceased, has claimed Rs. 1,50,000 by way of compensation and also demanded Rs. 50,000 towards penalty and filed the petition for award of Rs. 2,00,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereon.

( 4 ) THE respondent contested the claim and stated that the deceased was not driver but was a 'lagua' (agricultural labourer ). He was not having driving licence. But in the absence of the respondent, deceased had taken the tractor on his own to bring stone slabs and the accident occurred. This did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Deceased was getting rs. 400 per month only. As he was not employed as driver on or before the date of accident, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the commissioner framed issues for determination of the dispute between them. Among them, the important issue is whether the deceased Molai Sahu died in accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. While deciding the other issues, learned Commissioner holds that (a) the appellant is the wife of deceased and was depending on him, (b) at the time of the death, deceased Molai Sahu was 28 years old and was getting Rs. 400 per month, and (c) there is no defect of non-joinder of necessary parties and the application is maintainable under the provisions of Workmen 's Compensation Act. But issue No. 1 was decided against the claimant. Consequently, the application was dismissed, aggrieved by which, the appellant has filed the present appeal under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

( 6 ) MR. R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that there is no case for interference as the claimant has not been able to prove that deceased Molai sahu died in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and this is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered in this appeal and which can be entertained in case there is substantive question of law.

( 7 ) MR. Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Commissioner has not considered the pleadings, material evidence and documents resulting in erroneous and perverse finding. Therefore, substantial question of law arises and appeal is maintainable and finding can be set right in appeal. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that deceased Molai sahu was in the employment of the respondent. The tractor involved in the present case belongs to the respondent and the deceased, during the course of his employment, was bringing the stone slabs for respondent and accident had occurred out of and in the course of his employment. In the circumstances, the respondent is liable to pay compensation.

( 8 ) SO far as the scope of section 30 of workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is concerned, a wider construction has to be given in considering whether a substantial question of law arises. Substantial question of law is a mixed question of law and facts, for which it will be open to the court to consider the evidence for the determination of the question. The power of High Court to interfere with the finding of fact where substantial question of law is involved includes setting aside a finding of fact based on misreading or ignoring of the evidence. The Apex Court in Chunnilal V. Mehta v. C. S. and M. Co. Ltd. , AIR 1962 SC 1314, held that the following tests should, by and large, or any one of them be satisfied to find whether a substantial question of law is involved,