:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 1997 PDR Videotronics (I) Pvt. ] Limited, a company incorporated ] under the Companies Act, 1956 ] having its office at Film City ] Mulund Link Road, Off. General ] Arunkumar Vaidya Road, ] Goregaon (East), Bombay 400063 ]..Petitioner versus Dilip T. Sawant ] of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, ] having his address at ] C/o. Maharashtra Kamgar Congress] Union Office No.2, Shri ] Abdulkadar Ismail Chawl No.4868 ] S.T. No. 253 Gandhi Nagar, ] S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (East), ] Bombay 400 101 ]..Respondent Ms. Usha Rahi for the Petitioner. Ms. Shobana Gopal for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . This is a petition by the employer challenging an Award of the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference made by the Government in respect of a dispute between M/s. P.D.R. Videotronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Dilip T. :2: Sawant, the respondent workman. 2. The only contention argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court committed a serious error in holding that there was employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent - workman. 3. The respondent claimed that he was appointed as a Laboratory workman and was also looking after clerical and other outdoor work. He questioned his oral termination on 5.3.1988 on the ground that it was effected without following the procedure established by law. The petitioner filed its written statement and examined one Mr. Mahendra Yashwant Apte and one Mr. Amrut Katukar as witnesses. The respondent examined himself. 4. The learned Labour Court looked into the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that even though the respondent did not have any appointment letter and did not know whether the muster roll or wage register was maintained by the petitioner company, there is sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the respondent indeed was employed. The learned Labour Court referred to the evidence of :3: the petitioner’s witness Mr. Apte who was working as a Supervisor in the company since 1975. This witness clearly admitted during the course of cross-examination that several other employees such as Anant Gadre, Tasuja, Arjunan, Nathan, Shankar and Ramchandra were working with the company during specific period and yet their names were not mentioned in the muster cum wage register for the relevant period. The learned Labour Court has clearly referred to the evidence which points out the specific period for which a workman whose name was suggested by the respondent, actually worked without his name being in the muster cum wage register. On a reading of the Judgment it is apparent that the judgment is not based on any surmises but based on a critical appreciation of the evidence tendered before the court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent may have been working with sister concern i.e. Cine Super B. P. Ltd. and not with the petitioner M/s. P.D.R. Videotronics Pvt. Ltd. There appears to be no substance in this contention. The Labour Court has referred to the evidence of one Mr. Amrut who categorically admitted that Mahendra Apte who gave :4: evidence and made several admissions of several workers, was employed with the petitioner company. It may be noted that the petitioner company and the other company such as Cine Super B. P. Ltd. whose name was used to create some confusion are admittedly sister companies and there is no dispute before me on that. The finding of the Labour Court is clearly with regard to employment of the respondent workman, who was found to have been employed by the petitioner company on the basis of the evidence of the witness of the petitioner company who appears to have knowledge regarding the practice in the sister companies. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)