Gulab C. Gupta. J.-1. This is employer's appeal under section 30 of the Work men's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 31-3-1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Shahdol in case No. 20 of 1979 awarding a sum of Rs.3,528/- as compensation for employment injury sufferred by the respondent on 24-8-1977.

2. The respondent in his application filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Shahdol claimed that he was employed as a workman with the appellant at a monthly wage of Rs.150/- per month. It was his case that on 24-8-1977 at about 11 hours while at work, he suffered injury because of a fall of earth on him and became unfit for employment. The appellants, in their written statement admitted that the respondent was a workman employed by them but denied that on 24-8-1977, he was in employment or suffered any injury during the course of employment. Their case was that on 24-8-1977, the respondent remained absent and, therefore, his services were terminated. They, therefore, denied their liability to ray the compensation. It was also their case that no notice of the accident as required under section 10 of the Act was given and therefore, the claim was not maintainable. During the trial on 5-2-1981 before the Commissioner on an application filed by the appellant the respondent was directed to appear before the, Civil Surgeon, Satna on 20th March, 1981 for medical examination. The Civil Surgeon was directed to ascertain the age of the injury existing on the person of the respondent. From the proceedings it appears that on 26-3-1981 when the report of the Civil Surgeon was to be received, the appellants and their Advocate remained absent and, therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. Arguments were heard and the case was closed for orders on 8-4-1981. It, however, appears that the order of the Court was ready on 31-3-1981 and hence it was delivered in the open Court arid parties, informed. The learned Commissioner relying on the evidence of the respondent held that the respondent had suffered employment injury and had thereby suffered 15 per cent loss of his earning capacity. He rejected the defence of the appellants that the respondent was absent on the date of accident by holding that the appellants have not produced register maintained by them in accordance with law. That is how the compensation, as aforesaid, was awarded.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim was not maintainable in the absence of notice required to be given by the respondent under section 10 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. It is also submitted that non-examination of the respondent-by the Civil Surgeon in spite of the order of the Commissioner disentitles him to claim the compensation.

4. Section 30 of the Act authorizes this Court to entertain an appeal only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. The words "substantial question of law" have not been defined any where in the statute and yet they have acquired a definite connotation through vaicus decisions of our Supreme Court and various High Courts. In Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, the Supreme Court laid down the following 5 tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and held that even if anyone of them is satisfied the appeal would be entertained. These tests are (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties or (2) the question is of general public importance or (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that issue is not settled by pronouncement of the Supreme Court or Privy Council or by the Federal Court or (4) the issue is not free from difficulty and (5) it calls for a discussion for alternative view. Applying the aforesaid tests a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Abida Khatun