:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5998 OF 2007 Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Sohan Kumar Zha and anr. .. Respondents Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for petitioner. Mr. Amit M. Shete for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 29, 2008. Date : February 29, 2008. Date : February 29, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Anilkumar the learned counsel for the petitioner-company which is aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Mahad on 26/2/2007 thereby allowing Reference (IDA) No. 28 of 2004 and by the said award the respondent-workman has been directed to be reinstated with 20% backwages and continuity of service with effect from 26/3/2003. 2. It was the case of the respondent that he was working with the petitioner-company from 12/12/1999 as :2: a Security Guard and with effect from 26/3/2003 i.e. after putting in for more than three and half years continuously, he was illegally terminated from service. He, therefore, raised a demand for reinstatement which came to be referred for adjudication in the above referred reference to the Labour Court. 3. On notice, the petitioner-company appeared before the Labour Court and denied employer - employee relationship but did not disclose as to how the workman was engaged on its premises as a Security Guard. However, in the written arguments it came out with a case that the respondent-workman was engaged through a contractor and that too without giving the name of the contractor. On the other hand, the workman placed on record acceptable evidence to show that he was working for the petitioner-company and in its premises for more than three and half years. The Labour Court also accepted that about 50 or more persons were employed with the company and there were about 6 to 7 Security Guards. The documentary evidence placed by the workman on record clearly went :3: to show that he was working for the petitioner-company and on its premises and it was for the petitioner to point out through whom he was engaged when the reference was being decided by the Labour Court. 4. Hence, no fault could be found with the impugned award and it does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)