:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2007 M/s. Nutan Khandesh Roadlines ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Kailash H. Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Vasant Ambekar for petitioner. Mr. J.M. D’Silva for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 17, 2008. Date : March 17, 2008. Date : March 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7/7/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 11th Labour Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Application (IDA) No.72 of 2003. The Labour Court directed the opponent to pay the amount of Rs.75,700/- towards earned wages and daily allowance to the applicant for a period of 13 months within a period of one month and :2: with interest at 12% if the said amount was not paid within one month from 7/7/2007. 2. In its Written Statement, the petitioner had refuted the employer - employee relationship. The claimant Kailash Yadav brought on record the transport challans and pointed out that the vehicle he was employed to drive was owned by the petitioner. Mr.Kamlesh Yadav was another witness and who was a co-workman was examined by the claimant and this Kamlesh Yadav clearly deposed before the Labour Court that the claimant Kailash Yadav was working with him and, therefore, the employer - employee relationship was established. The petitioner’s witness Shri Hirji Nagshi Mamaya did not place on record any reliable evidence except his oral statement that the claimant was not employed as a driver. The Labour Court for detailed reasons was not persuaded to accept that there was no employer - employee relationship between the claimant and the present petitioner. I do not find any case for interference in the impugned order, having regards to the evidence brought on record and :3: even a copy of the award passed by the 7th Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 182 of 2003. 3. Hence this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)