A. K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition in which he challenges the award as well asmaking of reference order dated 11. 1. 1993 whereby Secretary, Labour made thereference. "whether Shri. Sushil Sharma has abandoned his services or his serviceshave been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if. . . so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in thisregard?"it was mentioned in the reference order that the dispute was between managementof m/s Essee Courier (formerly known as M/s Saico Enterprises and Co.), LB-35,tolstoy Marg, 17 Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-1, and its workman Shri Sushil Sharma C/omazdoor Vikas Morcha, 100 Foota Road, 28/15-F, Chhajjur Colony, Indra Margshahdara, Delhi. ( 2 ) AFTER the receipt of the reference order, notices were issued by the Labour Courtand it was duly received by the petitioner M/s Essee Courier as well. Petitioner filedthe written statement. Thereafter, it stopped appearing. Ultimately exparte awarddated 15. 10. 1998 was passed. Petitioner filed an application before the labourcourt for setting aside the exparte award which was dismissed. Petitioner thereafterfiled CM (Main) No. 296/99 challenging the order of the Labour Court dismissing theapplication of the petitioner for setting aside the exparte by this Court vide orderdated 1. 9. 1999. It means that petitioner could not show sufficient cause for non-appearance before Labour Court and the impugned award was maintained aspetitioners could not get the same set aside. ( 3 ) PETITIONER has filed the instant petition in which he challenges the impugnedaward dated 15. 10. 1998 as well as reference order dated 11. 1. 1993 mainly on theground that respondent NO. 1 was not the employee of M/s Essee Courier i. e thepetitioner and he was the employee of M/s Saico Enterprises and Co. with which M/sessee Courier has no connection. This disputed question of fact cannot begone intoin this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the petitioner was servedwith the notice by the Labour Court, it was for the petitioner to participate in theproceedings and adduce proper evidence to prove its contention that there was noemployer and employee relationship between the petitioner and Shri Sushil Sharmarespondent No. 1. Petitioner failed to do so and as it did not appear before thelabour Court, exparte award was passed on the basis of material produced beforethe Labour Court. Petitioner failed to do so and as it did not appear before thelabour Court, exparte award was passed on the basis of material produced beforethe Labour Court. Petitioner even moved application for setting aside the exparteaward and then petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the samepurpose but failed in its attempt. ( 4 ) THE present petition also nothing but an indirect attempt to achieve the sameresult in which the petitioner was not successful in its earlier attempt. The matter canbe looked into from another angle also. Once the earlier petition of the petitioner i. e. CM (Main) 296/99 was dismissed, it means that the ex-parte proceedings wererightly held against the petition - Thus even if the present petition is treated to bemaintainable, it has to be decided on the basis of record/material which was producedbefore the Labour Court. Petitioner cannot be permitted to place fresh material in thiscourt to argue that there was no relationship of employer and employee between thepetitioner and Shri Sushil Sharma. If the material which sought to be produced nowand which cannot be permitted to be produced for the first time before this Court isexcluded it cannot be said that findings of the Labour Court are improper or perverseas Labour Court returned the findings on the basis of material available before it. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article226 is neither maintainable nor has it any merit. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.