JUDGMENT : P. SATHASIVAM, J.—Aggrieved by the award passed in I.D.No. 344 of 1988, dated August 31, 1990, by the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The first respondent is an industry owning and maintaining several flats/houses and he entered service under the respondent on May 6, 1969 as a liftman-cum-electrician/plumber. All of a sudden, he was terminated from service on and from September 1, 1987. He was requesting the management on various occasions to confirm his services and to increase his salary, and the respondent was greatly prejudiced by the same, hence the management has terminated him from service on and from September 1, 1987. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 750 per month at the time of his termination from service. His juniors are still retained in service whereas he alone has been subjected to hostile discrimination and terminated without assigning any reason for the same. He was not paid any retrenchment compensation or notice-pay at the time of his retrenchment from service as contemplated u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and hence his retrenchment from service is in violation of Section 25F of the said Act and is void ab initio, which necessitated to raise an industrial dispute before the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras. The same was numbered as I.D.No. 344 of 1988. Inspite of the documents, which were marked as Exhibits W1 and W2, the Labour Court erroneously dismissed his claim holding that he had been working only as a free lancer electrician. The Labour Court has also committed an error in holding that the first respondent herein is not an industry and that there is no employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent herein. Despite the documents bearing clear proof of his appointment under the first respondent-management as a lift operator-cum-electrician, the second respondent passed award, dated August 31, 1990, holding that his non-employment is justified and ordered payment of Rs. 5,000 as ex gratia. The finding of the Labour Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 3. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. 5,000 as ex gratia. The finding of the Labour Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 3. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the claim statement, counter-statement as well as the order of the Labour Court, contended that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner/workman failed to establish the fact that there is a relationship between the employer and the employee. She also contended that from Exhibits W1 and W2, it is clear that the petitioner was working continuously under the first respondent management for more than five years. She further contended that the evidence before the Labour Court is sufficient to hold that the first respondent-management is an industry and in the absence of compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination order is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-management has contended that in the light of the factual conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court holding that the petitioner-workman failed to establish his claim, interference by this Court is very limited; accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. It is the definite case of the petitioner that he entered the service under the respondent on May 6, 1969 and he was carrying on his work faithfully and efficiently. During the material time, he was working as electrician and plumber and was drawing a salary of Rs. 750 per month. While so, he was suddenly terminated from service on September 1, 1987 without any notice or compensation. Since he demanded regularisation of his services and higher pay, the management determined to terminate him from service and he was terminated on September 1, 1987. Though the first respondent- management has totally denied the statement that petitioner entered service under them in the year 1969, i.e., on May 6, 1969, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Exhibit W1, would contend that the stand of the management is contrary to the contents in Exhibit W1 before the Labour Court. The workman was examined as W.W. 1 and one Duraisamy was examined as M.W. 1. The workman was examined as W.W. 1 and one Duraisamy was examined as M.W. 1. The workman has also produced and marked two certificates issued by the management as Exhibits W1 and W2. On the other hand, six documents have been marked on the side of the management. As stated earlier, even though the management denied the appointment of the petitioner, a perusal of Exhibit W1 shows that the petitioner's salary was increased from Rs. 120 to Rs. 130 per month from May 1975. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner very much pressed into service Exhibit W1, it is useful to refer the same. "Rasiklal M. Mehta Rajanikant M. Mehta June 2, 1975. Sri Arogya Doss (Liftman) Madras. Dear Sir, Ref: Your appointment with us: We are pleased to advise you that your salary has been increased with effect from May 1975, from Rs. 120 to Rs. 130 per month. For five more years, you have been fixed in the increment scale of Rs. 10 per year and you will get monthly salaries (consolidated) as under: 1975-76 - Rs. 130 per month 1976-77 - Rs. 140 per month 1977-78 - Rs. 150 per month 1978-79 - Rs. 160 per month 1979-80 - Rs. 170 per month 1980-81 - Rs. 180 per month and you are not to approach for any increased increments or other emoluments during the said period, to which you agree hereby. You will stick to working hours and be punctual and regular in your attendance. You will abide by the established leave rules and wherever it is reasonably possible you will obtain prior sanction of leave and shall not stop away abruptly keeping us in suspense or causing us inconvenience. Yours faithfully, For Rasiklal M. Mehta Rajanikant M. Mehta, sd/- (R.M.MEHTA)" It is clear from the said document that in the year 1975-76 his salary was increased from Rs. 120 to Rs. 130 and in the subsequent years there were increases of salary at the rate of Rs. 10 per year upto 1980-81. It is also clear that he was instructed to stick to working hours and keep punctuality in attending office. He was also advised to abide by the established leave rules and not to stop away abruptly causing inconvenience to them. 10 per year upto 1980-81. It is also clear that he was instructed to stick to working hours and keep punctuality in attending office. He was also advised to abide by the established leave rules and not to stop away abruptly causing inconvenience to them. The other document Exhibit W2 is the certificate issued by the first respondent-management which is as follows: "R.M. Mehta Manilal Mansion 172, Netaji Bose Rd. Madras-1 June 5, 1975. To whomsoever it may concern This is to certify that Sri M. A. Arogya Dos is employed as lift operator, in our building at 38/3, Mount Road, Madras 6 and his present salary is Rs. 130 per month, all inclusive. (Sd/-) (R.M. Mehta)" This document makes it clear that the petitioner was employed as lift operator in the building belonging to the management at 38/3, Mount Road, Madras 6, and his salary at the relevant time was Rs. 130 per month. Both the above mentioned documents support the plea of the petitioner that he was originally employed as lift operator and he was allowed to work till 1980-81. Even if the above particulars are accepted Exhibit Ml marked on the side of the management shows that on October 5, 1983 after settlement of his dues the petitioner had stopped from attending any work. Exhibit M1 is dated October 5, 1983. In Exhibit Ml is stated, "Received from Messrs Rasiklal M. Mehta, Rajanikant M. Mehta and others 118, Netaji Bose Road, Madras 600 079 the sum of rupees three hundred and seventy-five only, being gratuity after adjustment of the amount due to them, in full and final settlement of all my claim whatever on account of the services with them by me till this date." It is clear that on receipt of gratuity payment of Rs. 375 and after settlement of all claims, he had executed the abovesaid receipt in favour of the first respondent. Thereafter, there is no proof or evidence that the petitioner was employed in the first respondent- management. No doubt, according to the first respondent, he was only a free lancer electrician and when there is any electricity repair, the petitioner used to attend at No. 135, Mount Road, Madras 6, in which there are number co-tenants. Thereafter, there is no proof or evidence that the petitioner was employed in the first respondent- management. No doubt, according to the first respondent, he was only a free lancer electrician and when there is any electricity repair, the petitioner used to attend at No. 135, Mount Road, Madras 6, in which there are number co-tenants. In other, words, according to them, only when there is any electricity repair in the building, he was asked to attend the said repair work and he was paid by all the members of the family a sum of Rs. 500 towards the electrical maintenance of the building and not for any other purpose. Accordingly, even if it is accepted that for the earlier years, namely, up to 1980-81 the petitioner was paid monthly salary by the first respondent for doing some work as per Exhibit Ml, after October 5, 1983, the petitioner has nothing to do with the first respondent. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by the Labour Court, no relationship of employer and employee exists after October 5, 1983. 6. Now I shall consider the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the foremost she referred to a decision reported on in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Hyderabad, and Anr. 1974 I L.L.J. 271. It is clear from the said decision that it is necessary to examine the question whether the right to control the manner of work is an exclusive test to determine the nature of relationship and whether the facts proved would satisfy the requirements of the test. Their Lordships on a review of the case - law have concluded that in recent years the control test as traditionally formulated has not been treated as an exclusive test. Their Lordships have also opined that control is obviously an important factor and in many cases the decisive factor. Though the learned counsel extensively referred to various paragraphs of the said decision, as stated earlier, in the light of Exhibit Ml which has been accepted by the petitioner himself, even though there is no dispute with regard to the legal position. I am of the view that in the light of the factual position, the said decision is not helpful to the petitioner's case. 7. I am of the view that in the light of the factual position, the said decision is not helpful to the petitioner's case. 7. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 257 . Their Lordships have concluded in that as follows at p. 398 of LLJ: "5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off......." Here again in the light of the factual position, in our case, the above mentioned decision is also not helpful to his case. 8. In Shining Tailors Vs. Industrial Tribunal II, U. P., Lucknow and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 464 , their Lordships have explained the test to determine relationship of master and servant. In that case their Lordships have expressed thus, at p. 414 of LLJ: "5. In the past the test to determine the relationship of employer and workmen was the test of control and not the method of payment. Piece-rate payment, meaning thereby payment co-related to production, is a well-recognised mode of payment to industrial workmen. In fact wherever possible that method of payment has to be encouraged so that there is utmost sincerity, efficiency and single-minded devotion to increase production which would be beneficial both to the employer, the workmen and the nation at large..." For the very same reasons, this decision is also not helpful to the petitioner's case. 9. The last decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Hanshree Apartment Owners' Association Vs. Hanshree Apartment Owners' Employees' Union and Others, (1992) 2 LLJ 423 , which is a judgment of Calcutta High Court wherein the learned Judge has made me following observation, in Paras, 11 and 12, at p. 425 of LLJ: "11...... It is not a case of a single individual engaging a number of menial staff for the purpose of enjoyment of a vast and huge property. It is not a case of a single individual engaging a number of menial staff for the purpose of enjoyment of a vast and huge property. It is a case where a commercial adventurer constructs a gigantic structure for the sole purpose of selling the same after fragmenting it into pieces each piece being called an apartment and for that purpose engages such multitude of servants to keep the common areas clean. 12. In the aforesaid situation the services rendered by the countless menials would undoubtedly come within the scope of the definition of 'industry' u/s 2(j) of the 1947 Act..." As stated earlier, in our case, it is clear that the petitioner used to attend electrical and plumbing work as and when any need arises and he was not employed continuously. It is also relevant that, even in his evidence, the petitioner himself has stated that he not only attended electrical and plumbing work of first respondent-management, but also attended work at No. 185, Mount Road, No. 35, Muniappa Road, No. 10, Crescent Road, Adyar and at N.S.C. Bose Road. This version supports the case of the first respondent that petitioner used to attend other buildings of various concerns. After considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by both sides, the Labour Court, second respondent herein, came to the following factual conclusion. (Vernacular matter ommited) 10. In the light of the above categorical findings based on acceptable evidence. I am unable to accept the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am also satisfied that the Labour Court has gone into all the aspects in detail and rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any acceptable reason to interfere in the impugned award of the Labour Court, dated August 31, 1990, consequently the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.