1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5302/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Prakash Maroti Narnaware and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5307/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Anil Punnaji Bhotmange and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5370/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Vijay Abhimanyu Shewade and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5421/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Dharmapal S. Dhongade and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5422/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Kushal N. Fulzele and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5430/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Dilip Pralhad Hatmode and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5431/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Sudhakar M. Shingane and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5433/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Roshan H. Meshram and others. WRIT PETITION No. 5451/2009. M/s. Savita Gas Agency -: versus :- Raju Ramaji Raut and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 5, 2010. Heard Ms. U.A. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner – Agency, Shri D.C. Naukarkar, learned counsel for respective employee – respondent no.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Case of petitioner is that employee [respondent no.1] was not in its employment. He was never given any appointment order and he was distributing the cylinders to customers or attending complaints of customers on commission basis. The customers used to note their 2 demand/ grievance with petitioner and the same were attended to by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 directly use to recover charges from customers for such services. The petitioner only provided vehicle i.e. 5 wheeler or 3 wheeler for distributing LPG Cylinders to customers and there was no other control. Learned Counsel during arguments has stated that entire work force with petitioner is doing the work on same condition. Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel for employee has pointed out that the establishment of petitioner is registered under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and they are not maintaining any records. Witness for petitioner accepted in cross -examination, that respondent no.1 was working under its control and supervision. He further states that every month initially some amount used to be paid in advance towards salary and at the end of month balance amount used to be paid. Perusal of evidence on record and award clearly show that the petitioner has not appointed any body in service and therefore is not maintaining any records. However, it has given identity cards to the persons like respondent no.1 and the demand made by the customers or then as complaint is received by petitioner only. The petitioner thereafter deputes persons like respondent no.1 to look after the said demand or grievance. The award passed by the Industrial Court shows the control by petitioner and payment also. The story of payment on commission has not been substantiated. Petitioner has not produced on record any material to show the number of calls attended by 3 respondent no.1 and the proportionate payment of commission to him. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the finding of Labour Court that, relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties. No interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.