H.R. Sodhi J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. 8 of 1923), (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment of the Commissioner awarding compensation to the Respondent in a sum of Rs. 2066.40 P. for injuries alleged to have been caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Appellants runs a saw -mill located at Pathankot in the State of Punjab and the Respondent Cheru Ram was employed as a workman in that factory. On 7th of December, 1963, the Respondent who is an unskilled labourer, was deputed to collect sawn pieces of wood from the band -saw. It appears that in order to collect the wood, the Respondent had to cross the belt and what happened was that he tried to remove that belt from the shaft presumably to facilitate the collection of the sawn wood. According to the Respondent, he did so fearing that he might otherwise be involved in an accident. It is common ground that he was trying to remove the belt when he received injuries including a fracture of his right forearm and wounds on the thumb and index finger of the right hand as a result whereof both of them had to be amputated by Doctor Rachhpal Singh, Senior Lecturer Medical College, Amritsar, who appeared as A.W. 1. Loss of earning capacity due to loss of thumb is 30% and due to the loss of 2 phalanxes of the indet finger is 11%. Cheru Ram moved the Commissioner for the said injuries under Section 3 of the Act. The claim of the Respondent was resisted by the Appellant on whose behalf it was pleaded that the Respondent was required to be more than 20 feet from the band -saw and it was no part of his duty to have gone near the belt (patta) gear -box. The accident, according to the Appellant, was the result of sheer negligence of the Respondent who was not at the time performing any duty in connection with the work allotted to him. It was, in other words, pleaded that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of the Appellant ?
(2.) WHAT amount, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to recover by way of compensation from the Respondent ? Relief. Issue No. 1 has been decided in favour of the Respondent and under issue No. 2 the finding is that the total amount payable to the Respondent works out to a sum of Rs. 2066.4'' P. The Appellant was accordingly directed to pay to the Respondent the said amount and an appeal has consequently been filed to get rid of this liability. The only point urged on behalf of the Appellant before me is that it has not been established that the accident resulting in injuries to the Respondent arose out of and in the course of his employment. The contention indeed is that there was no causal connection between the accident and the duty to be performed by the Respondent. It is urged that the Commissioner has not correctly appreciated evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties and his finding in this regard is erroneous. I am afraid there is no substance in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The appeal merits dismissal on the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mahajan on behalf of the Respondent that no substantial question of law is involved in it. Section 30 provides an appeal to the High Court from specific orders passed by Commissioner and one of them is an order regarding compensation. There are three provisos appended to Sub -section (1) and we are concerned with the first proviso only which lays down that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and the in case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b) unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees. ' It is the first part of this proviso that is relevant for our purposes, as the case is not one covered by Clause (b) of Sub -clause (1). There is no general right of appeal given against the orders of the Commissioner but a restricted one arising only in those cases where a substantial question of law is involved. The object of the legislature in fact is to give finality to the decision of the Commission in the matter of award of compensation. 2. The question as to whether an accident has resulted out of and in the course of an employment depends on the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. A finding on such an issue is indisputably one of fact raising no question of law muchless a substantial question of law for the purposes of Section 30 of the Act. If on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible and the Commissioner accepts one of them the findings of the Commissioner cannot be assailed in appeal as no question of law can be said to arise within the meaning of Section 30. The decision of the Commissioner is based on the testimony of two witnesses, Kishan Chand, A. W. 2 and Parkash A.W. 3, both of whom were working in the factory of the Appellant at the time of the accident. The Respondent also went into the witness -box. It is stated by Kishan Chand, A.W.2 that the Respondent in the performance of his duty of collecting sawn pieces of wood had cross the moving belt off and on and that to did try to remove the belt when his hand hegotinjued To the same effect is the statement of Parkash A. W. 3 Another employee produced by the Appellant stated that it was not necessary for the Respondent to cross the belt for removing cut -wood and according to Mr. Ganga Singh Manager of the factory, the duty of the Respondent was only to remove planks from the machine and that he had nothing to do with the working of the band saw. The finding of the Commissioner is that it was the duty of the Petitioner to remove place of wood, from band saw and sometimes he used to work as a khachya as well. It is also found by him that at the time of the accident the Respondent was removing sawn pieces of wood and that in doing so he had to cross the moving belt every time and that when he tried to remove the belt from the shaft, he was involved in the accident. The findings of the Commissioner are unexceptionable and on an appreciation of evidence it must be held that the Respondent was working in the course of his employment and accident arose out of such employment. It may be true that the Respondent could have avoided the accident by not trying to remove the belt but it must not be forgotten that he did so under an apprehension that otherwise he might be involved in an accident. The expression 'arising out of employment and in the course of employment' must not be given a restricted meaning and is wide enough to include cases where by virtue of the duty that a workman is called upon to perform he is brought in a zone of special danger and gets injured. The Respondent in the instant case was performing his duties and it was in the course of that performance that he was exposed to the risk of being injured whenever he went across the moving belt to collect the sawn pieces of wood. It cannot in such a situation be said that there was no causal link between the injury and his employment. To make the employer liable it is not necessary that the injury must have resulted from the nature of the employment and it also does not matter that the workman acted carelessly or improperly. The test in all such cases as was observed by Lord Summer in Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company v. Highly, 1917 A.C. 352 (372). is: Was it, part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer or to do that which caused his injury ? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. In the circumstances of this case, I find no reason to differ from the Commissioner and must hold that the accident resulting in injuries to the Respondent arose out of and in the course of his employment. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed but there is no order as to costs. ;