WP/3199/1997 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3199 OF 1997 Ishaq J. Mansuri ... Petitioner V/s. Mukhtar Jabbar Shaikh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.K.S. Bapat for Petitioner Mr.S.U. Dhakephalkar for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This petition has been preferred against the award of the Labour Court, Thane dated 24.10.1996 in Reference (IDA) No.136 of 1988. 2. The Petitioner claims that he was employed with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who had a powerloom business which was situated at 527, Gauripada, opposite Sultani Hotel, Bhiwandi. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated by his employers on 2.7.1987, after working for several years. He therefore obtained a Reference by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Reference was registered as Reference (IDA) No.136 of 1988. 3. A statement of claim was filed by the petitioner in which he contended that 36 weavers and two watchmen were employed by the respondents in the powerloom WP/3199/1997 : 2 : factory situated at Bhiwandi. He contended that he was working as a jobber for 15 years prior to his dismissal from service. According to him, the employers did not maintain a register of the workmen employed by them nor were any attendance cards, leave cards, etc. issued to the workmen. Payments were made on vouchers and signatures of the workmen were obtained on them only for two years prior to the termination of the petitioner's services. He pleaded that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. A written statement was filed by the respondents contending that they had no connection with the employee as he was not their workman. They also pleaded that the Reference itself was not maintainable as the workman was not employed by them. Furthermore, it was pleaded that they were running a powerloom business at 492, Gauri Pada, and not 572, Gauri Pada. Evidence was led by the workman in which he supported his pleadings in his statement of claim. He also deposed that he had written some letters to the employees addressed at 572, Gauri Pada which was refused by his employers. He admitted further that he had no proof to substantiate his claim that he was working with the respondents. 5. Respondent No.1 was examined before the Labour Court. He deposed that his brothers were running a powerloom business at 572, New Gauri Pada while he was running the business at 492, Gauri Pada. He denied having employed the petitioner at any point of time. The respondents also led the evidence of one Abdul Kalam, who claimed that he was running a business at 572, Gauri Pada, Bhiwandi. He deposed that he was looking after the powerlooms which were owned by the brothers of Mukhtar Shaikh, Respondent No.1 herein. In his cross-examination, he WP/3199/1997 : 3 : has denied that he ever employed the petitioner or that the powerlooms which were housed in 572, New Gauri Pada were owned by the respondents herein. 6. The Labour Court has accepted the oral evidence on record of the respondents and has rejected the Reference. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner was unable to substantiate his case that he was an employee of the respondents. 7. I have perused a copy of the award and in my opinion, the submissions of Mr.Bapat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, are unsustainable. He has argued that the very fact that letters sent to the respondents at 572, New Gauri Pada were refused indicated that the respondents were the employers and there could have been no doubt about the employer-employee relationship. Mr.Bapat candidly admitted that the petitioner had not called upon the respondents to produce documents such as wage registers, attendance cards, etc. However, he explained this by submitting that, had such an application been filed, it would have been inconsistent with the pleadings in the statement of claim and, therefore, such an application was not preferred. 8. In my opinion, the petitioner has not been able to establish the employer- employee relationship between the respondents and himself. Even though there was no documentary evidence on which the petitioner could have relied, the petitioner could well have examined his co-workmen to prove his case that he was in fact employed by the respondents. However, he has failed to do so. WP/3199/1997 : 4 : 9. In my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the Reference. It has considered oral evidence on record and has chosen to believe the testimony of the employer. 10. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.