: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9190 OF 2009 Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad ... Petitioner V/s. Sunita Prakash Nimhan ... Respondent Mr.Pankaj Kowli a/w Jayesh Desai for Petitioner Mr.N.A. Kulkarni for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The writ petition is filed against the findings of the Labour Court on the issue as to whether the respondent is a workman. The Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.3376 of 1996 has held, after considering the evidence on record, that the respondent is a workman of the petitioner. The Labour Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Mahila Griha Udyog (Lijjat Papad Kendra), Amravati & Ors. v/s. Ratnamala D. Koken, 1995 I CLR 946. Undisputedly, the respondent in the present case was performing the same work as the respondent in the case before the High Court in which the aforesaid judgment was rendered. A distinction was sought to be drawn by the learned advocate for the Petitioner between the present case and the case decided earlier to the effect that the respondent was a member of the Managing Committee. No evidence of this nature : 2 : was placed on record by the Petitioner. In fact, no evidence at all was led by the Petitioner. The petitioner merely chose to cross-examine the respondent. The Labour Court after having considered the evidence and the issues raised has held that the nature of work that the respondent was performing indicated that she was a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that there was an employer-employee relationship between her and the petitioner. 2. There is no error committed by the Labour Court requiring interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.