1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6838 OF 2008 Shamsuddin S. Ansari. ...Petitioner. Vs. Ramavtar Ganeshmal Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Firoz A. Ansari for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 7, 2008. P.C. On 16th October 2007, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to the workman who is the Petitioner before the Court in these proceedings. While remanding the matter, the Learned Single Judge of this Court had observed that the principal issue that arose for consideration was whether there existed an employer and employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents in view of the defence 2 set up in the Written Statement. Upon remand, parties led additional evidence before the Labour Court. 2. The Labour Court has, upon considering the evidence on the record, come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to establish that there existed a relationship of employer and employee with the Respondents. The Labour Court noted that the Petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence on record to show that he was in the employment of the Respondents. The Labour Court noted that the Petitioner failed to lead the evidence of even a single co-worker to the effect that he was working in the establishment. The Labour Court held that an electricity bill of 2000 which was produced by the Petitioner would only show that the power looms were running in the year 2000, but that would not establish the existence of an employer and employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents. This finding is correct. That apart, the Labour Court has also accepted the contention of the Respondents that the Respondents have entered 3 into an agreement and that with effect from 1st June 2003 the power looms were handed over for conducting to a third party on a rental basis. The Labour Court has arrived at these findings on the basis of the evidence on the record. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner urged that the Labour Court arrived at findings which were diametrically contrary to the findings in the earlier round of litigation. That submission would not carry the case of the Petitioner any further. The earlier award dated 31st March 2007 was set aside by a Learned Single Judge on 16th October 2007 and, while remanding the proceedings for fresh adjudication, this Court observed that the Labour Court ought to have gone into the question whether a relationship of employer and employee existed. That has been done after remand. The Labour Court has found that the Petitioner has failed to established the existence of such a relationship. 4. In the circumstances, having regard to the parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not open for this Court to review the 4 evidence once again and substitute its own conclusion for the conclusion which has been arrived at by the primary fact finding authority, that is the Labour Court. There is no merit in the petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. .......