Dixit 1 LPA-364-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.364 OF 2011 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6653 OF 2011 Gopikisan Kesharichand Jhavar & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Kumar Kunjaram Shetty ... Respondent Mr. D.S. Hatle for the Appellants. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 1 ST DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants is that the Labour Court has wrongly held that the Respondent is a workman, when, according to the Appellants/Employers, he is contractor. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and has held that it is the Appellants who came to Court with the case that the Respondent is not their workman, but he was a contractor. But, he did not prove any document which support his case. The Dixit 2 LPA-364-11 learned Single Judge has considered every aspect of the matter in detail. We do not see any reason to interfere. 3. The Appeal is rejected. 4. In view of this, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed off as infructuous. [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] [D.K. DESHMUKH, J.]