ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. In our opinion the findings recorded by the High Court as to the relationship of employer and employee has not been established as well as that the accident has not been proved are not sustainable. The High Court has ignored the definition contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which would cover the kind of employment by virtue of which the workman was rendering the services, even services through sub-contractors are covered in the definition.

4. With respect to the accident also, we find that the High Court has jumped to the conclusion, without due consideration of the evidence on record. In our opinion, there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal before the High Court. The High Court has illegally interfered with the finding of fact based on discussion of evidence recorded by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation.

5. In the facts and circumstances, we restore the order passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand