1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3651 OF 1991. Laxman Kishanrao Jadhav. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS Omprakash Hiralal Jaju. ... RESPONDENT. ... Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.R. Mundada, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 7th December, 1990 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Reference IDA No.51/1984. 2. The brief facts of the case are, as under: There was reference under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act) by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 2 Aurangabad relating to the dispute between the petitioner and respondent herein. In answer to the notice, the second party - workman filed his statement of claim Exh.3. He contended that he was serving with the first party in the flour mill from 1.1.1971. He had served with the first party till the end of 31st October, 1981. His services were orally terminated by the first party. He was not served with one month's notice or compensation and, therefore, the oral termination is illegal. 3. The respondent herein i.e. the first party before the Labour Court resisted the claim by filing written statement Exh.14. It is contended that the petitioner herein was never in the employment of the first party - respondent herein. The first party is legal practitioner and had no concern with the flour mill as referred by the second party. Since the second party was not in service of the first party, there was no question of issuing any notice of termination or payment of retrenchment compensation, as contended by the second party. 3 The claim of the second party is malicious, false and fictitious and is liable to be rejected. 4. The Labour Court framed necessary issues for its determination and held that there is no master - servant relationship between the first party and second party and also held that second party is not entitled for declaration as sought for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through the pleadings in the petition, grounds therein and submitted that the oral termination of the petitioner was without following the proper procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. While terminating the services of the petitioner, no procedure as contemplated under the I.D. Act has been followed by the respondent - employer. It is further stated that the petitioner herein worked continuously in the flour mill run by the respondent and he was supervising the work of the 4 flour mill. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the grounds in the petition and submitted that the petition deserves tobe allowed. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that at no point of time the petitioner was employed by the respondent. The respondent is legal practitioner and he does not own any flour mil, as stated by the petitioner. The learned Counsel supported the reasoning given by the Labour Court and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the considered view that the petitioner utterly failed to establish the relationship between the respondent and petitioner as employer and employee or master and servant. That apart, no any documentary evidence was produced on record to establish the case of the petitioner that he was working in the flour mill or supervising the flour mill for the period from 1.1.1971 to 5 31.10.1981. The Labour Court, in paragraph 7 of the judgment, has appreciated the document Exh.C-4 and C-5 and recorded findings that the flour mill sands in the name of Ramprasad Hiralal Jaju and the claim is made against Omprakash Jaju. The Labour Court has also appreciated other documents and held that the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it clearly appears that the petitioner failed to produce document on record to establish his case that he was working for the period stated by him with respondent herein. 8. No case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*