JUDGMENT S.K. Mookerji, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is made clear that Writ Petition No. 8943 of 1978, has been filed by Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products, Naini, Allahabad, and the present petition has been filed by Universal Tyres, Ltd. In both the writ petitions Dr. K.C. Srivastava is the respondent. Both the writ petitions have been directed against an award passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad, in proceedings under S. 6H(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, initiated by Sri K.C. Srivastava. 3. It appears that Universal Tyres, Ltd., on 1 January 1974 had appointed Dr. K.C. Srivastava, a medical practitioner, as a consultant for the treatment of its employees in its factory on a specific monthly remuneration. Universal Tyres, Ltd., was closed down and it gave its factory on a lease to Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Jay Shree). This Jay Shrce stopped making monthly payment to Dr. K.C. Srivastava. Thereafter he invoked the machinery under S. 6H(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and made two applications in the Labour Court for the payment of a sum of Rs. 3750 as wages for the period from 1 July 1976 to 1 October 1977 and a sum of Rs. 1250 for the period 1 October 1977 to February 1978. Both the petitioners in the concerned writ petitions contested the applications on the ground, inter alia, that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was not a workman. This defence did not find favour with the Labour Court and by the impugned order the petitioners in the 31 connected writ petition were directed to pay the aforementioned amounts to Dr. K.C. Srivastava. 4. The only point for determination in this writ petition is as to whether Dr. K.C. Srivastava was a workman within the meaning of the Act. His appointment letter is dated l January 1974. The letter discloses " w. are pleased to appoint you on ' retainer ship basis' for the treatment of our factory employees on the following terms and conditions." The first condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was to be paid a sum of Rs. 250 per month as consultation charges. The other condition was that Dr. The letter discloses " w. are pleased to appoint you on ' retainer ship basis' for the treatment of our factory employees on the following terms and conditions." The first condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was to be paid a sum of Rs. 250 per month as consultation charges. The other condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was to be paid a total retail cost of the medicines used by him for the employees on submission of the monthly bill. The third condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was entitled to a visiting fee of Rs. 5 and further that the employees of the factory were made responsible to pay for any special treatment, such as bone setting, which may entail X-ray, plastering or major operation, if and when referred to the District Hospital, Medical College or any specialists. The appointment letter ended like this- " you are requested to send your bill towards the monthly consultation charges and cost of medicines along with slips of individual employees sent to you for medical treatment through our factory. Your bill after scrutiny will be forwarded to our accounts department and the same will be immediately paid thereafter." It is thus clear that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was required to go to the factory premises for rendering medical aid or administering treatment to the employees of the petitioner. It is also clear that individual employees could not approach Dr. K.C. Srivastava directly. Before they could go, they were required to obtain slips from the factory. It is relevant to point out that the letter of appointment was also silent regarding the supervision, direction and control by Universal Tyres, Ltd., over the work of Dr. K.C. Srivastava. It emerges, therefore, that there was no relationship of the employer and employee between the petitioners and the doctor. 5. On scrutiny of the evidence led by Dr. K.C. Srivastava before the Labour Court en it is clear that he deposed that he did not attend the factory every day and attended the patients who came to his clinic either during day or night with a slip or chit from the management. He used to visit the factory whenever he was called. He never received any fee for examining the patients specially when he was called to the factory premises or elsewhere. He, however, admitted that he was paid a visiting fee. He used to visit the factory whenever he was called. He never received any fee for examining the patients specially when he was called to the factory premises or elsewhere. He, however, admitted that he was paid a visiting fee. It is also clear from his statement that he never signed the muster-roll of the factory nor he was required under any rule to do so. He was also not required to apply for leave and had no knowledge about the standing orders as deposed by him. In the records of the factory his wages sometimes were described as " remuneration allowance" or professional allowance or salary. On behalf of the petitioner one Sri N. N. Verma an assistant in the Time Office in Universal Tyres was examined. He categorically stated that none of the standing orders applicable to Universal Tyres had been applied to Dr. K.C. Srivastava. The provisions concerning either the Employees' State Insurance or Provident Fund were also not applicable to Dr. K.C. Srivastava nor there was any duty hours fixed for the aforesaid Dr. K.C. Srivastava. From the materials on record it is clear that neither the place or work of the doctor was fixed nor was he required to perform his job under the supervision, direction and control of Universal Tyres nor the time of the working of Dr. K.C. Srivastava was fixed nor were the standing orders, applicable to the concern, were made applicable to Dr. K.C. Srivastava nor was he entitled to the benefits of provident, fund, etc. On examining the materials on record it is held that there is evidence for recording a finding that Dr. K.C. Srivastava, in his capacity as medical practitioner, had been merely retained as a consultant by Universal Tyres, Ltd., so as to enable its employee to receive medical aid. He was not under any employment. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as already narrated above, it is clear that there was no relationship of employer and employee or master and servant between Dr. K.C. Srivastava and Universal Tyres, Ltd., or Jay Shreet Under the circumstances Dr. K.C. Srivastava could not be deemed or held to be a workman so as to enable him to set in motion the machinery envisaged by S. 6H(2) of the, Act. The finding of the Labour Court on the jurisdictional fact that Dr. K.C. Srivastava and Universal Tyres, Ltd., or Jay Shreet Under the circumstances Dr. K.C. Srivastava could not be deemed or held to be a workman so as to enable him to set in motion the machinery envisaged by S. 6H(2) of the, Act. The finding of the Labour Court on the jurisdictional fact that Dr. K.C. Srivastava is a workman is wholly erroneous in law. As such, the finding cannot be allowed to remain on record and deserves to be set aside. 6. Both the writ petitions succeed and arc allowed. The impugned order, dated 25 July 1978, passed by the Labour Court at Allahabad in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 78 of 1977 and 9 of 1978 is quashed. The applications made by Dr. K.C. Srivastava, under S. 6H(2) of the Act, before the Labour Court, shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. It is. also made clear that the amount, if deposited by the petitioner, in pursuance of the order, dated 1 October 1980, passed by this Court shall be refunded to the concerned petitioner expeditiously.