C.M.A.M.P.No.1291 of 2009 is filed by the vacate stay petitioners-Respondents in C.M.A.No.496 of 2007 to vacate the interim order made by this Court in C.M.A.M.P.No.1128 of 2007, dated 13-7-2007. At the stage of hearing of the vacate stay application, learned counsel representing the appellant in C.M.A. and also the respondents in C.M.A. made a request for the final disposal of the C.M.A. itself. Since the C.M.A. is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of finally, no orders need be passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.1291 of 2009 and accordingly, the same is hereby closed.

2. The Branch Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karimnagar, Opposite Party No.1 in W.C.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar had preferred the present C.M.A. under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the purpose of convenience).

3. Learned Commissioner for Workmen and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties. After recording the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and RW-1 and marking Ex.A-1 to A-10 ultimately came to the conclusion that Respondents 1 to 10-Applicants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,54,610/- with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. had been preferred.

4. Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote representing appellant would maintain that the learned Commissioner totally erred in holding that there was an employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant bank. Learned counsel also pointed out that the learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that no acceptable documentary evidence had been placed to prove that the deceased was engaged by the appellant Bank. The counsel also would maintain that even as per the evidence of PW-3, the deceased in fact was employed by PW-3 and not by the appellant Bank. The counsel also pointed out to the definition of the Workmen and further pointed out to Schedule II of the Act and also pointed out to the substantial questions of law raised in the present C.M.A. and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, since the deceased would not answer or fall within the definition of the workmen, the very Act itself being non-applicable granting of compensation cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her submissions.

5. Per contra Sri D.Kasim Saheb representing S.K. Moinuddin had taken this Court through the evidence of PWs-3 and 4 apart from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and would maintain that in the light of clear evidence available on record, it cannot be said that there was no employer and employee relationship between the appellant Bank and the deceased. The learned counsel also would further maintain that in the light of the enlarged scope of definition of the workmen specially after the Amendment, to contend that the deceased would not fall within the definition of the workmen, cannot be accepted. The counsel also further pointed out to the documentary evidence available on record and also the clear findings recorded by the learned commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar and ultimately the counsel would conclude that in the light of the clear findings which had been recorded by the learned Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar since no substantial questions of law, as such, would arise for consideration inasmuch as on facts, the findings had been recorded, the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. The counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

6. Heard the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also findings recorded by the learned Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar.

7. In the light of the