-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1682 OF 2009 Mr.Vasudeo Balu Trilotkar : Petitioner V/s. M/s.Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. : Respondent ... Mr.H.Kumar Vaidyanathan for the petitioner. Mr.Y.M.Pendse for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the VIIth Labour Court, Mumbai, holding that the petitioner’s services were legally terminated by the respondent-company and, therefore, denied reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. A perusal of the award shows that the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not employed by the company at all and he was employed by one Mr.Shroff, who was the Director of the company, and his services were utilised upon his demise by his widow and were terminated later by his son. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urged that the Labour Court has committed a serious error of law -: 2 :- in disbelieving the salary certificates which were admittedly signed by Mrs.Madhavi Shroff, the widow of the former Director. Apart from the fact that the inference drawn by the Labour Court is a pure question of fact, it is clear that the inference is drawn on the basis of the evidence of Mrs.Madhavi Shroff who stated that these salary certificates which have been signed by her were given to the petitioner to enable him to obtain a loan for a scooter. 3. That apart, a perusal of the award of the Labour Court is based on cogent evidence referable to the petitioner himself. The petitioner had clearly stated in his deposition that he was employed by the husband of Mrs.Madhavi Shroff and, thereafter, by her. He further admitted that he received his wages from her husband and the said Mrs.Madhavi Shroff. He also admitted that his duties did not end when he used to reach Mrs.Shroff to her residence. In fact, he used to take her children to classes and for shopping. He used to obtain leave orally and did not have any appointment order from the company. In these circumstances, if the Labour Court did not accept the veracity of the salary certificate which has been explained as having been issued for enabling the petitioner to obtain a loan for a scooter, the award cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent -: 3 :- on the face of the record or perversity, justifying interference. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.