JUDGMENT S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. The petitioners claimed that they were employed by respondent No.2 (in short respondent/management) on different dates in the years 1989,1990 and 1991 as security guards. They worked with the respondent/management continuously. However, their services were terminated by the respondent/management in August, 1994. They were neither charge- sheeted nor any enquiry was held. No notice was given and even retrenchment compensation was not paid. They have moved demand notice but the conciliation proceedings had failed. The matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (in short Labour Court). 2. The respondent/management took the plea that the petitioners were employed by the contractor and were not employees of the respondent/management. The Labour Court vide award dated 6.9.2004 (Annexure P-8) held that the relationship of employee and employer did not exist between the parties and, therefore, the reference made to it was held as not maintainable and it was declined. 3. Hence the present writ petition to impugn the said award. 4. The petitioners have not produced any letter of their appointment, if any, issued by the respondent/management. They have alleged that they continued working with the respondent/management for three to four years and some of them even more than four years as their services were allegedly terminated by the respondent/management in August,1994. Although it was averred by the petitioners that salary was being paid to them by the respondent/management but they have failed to summon any record or produce any documentary evidence to show if they have drawn any salary from the respondent/management. No muster roll was summoned from the respondent/management to show their presence as employees of the respondent/management. Even the termination orders have not been placed on the file. Therefore, the material documentary evidence which could have proved the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondent/management has not been produced by the petitioners or summoned by them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identity cards were issued to the petitioners by the respondent/management in the year 1992 and copies of those identity cards were placed on the file as Annexures P-2 and P-3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identity cards were issued to the petitioners by the respondent/management in the year 1992 and copies of those identity cards were placed on the file as Annexures P-2 and P-3. The respondent/management has explained it by taking the plea that those days were the days of terrorism and there was frequent checking by the police and semi defence forces and in order to ensure the safety of the petitioners who were working as security guards for the respondent/ management but under the contractor, identity cards were issued. The reasons given by the respondent/management for the issuance of identity cards appears to us to be quite reasonable and, therefore, the issuance of identity cards does not establish if the petitioners were the employees of the respondent/management. 6. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that EPF and ESI account numbers of the respondent/management were used for the purposes of petitioners which also prove that they were the employees of the respondent/management. This contention also does not appeal to us. The terms and conditions of the contract between the respondent/management and the contractors, have been placed on the file by the petitioners as Annexure P-3.Condition No.3 clearly reveals that EPF and ESI were to be borne by the contractor. Accordingly, merely because the account of the respondent/management has been used does not make the petitioners to be employees of the respondent/management. The EPF and ESI of the principal employer can be used by the contractor for the labour employed by him. It does not have the consequence of creating a relationship of employee and the employer between the management and the persons employed by the contractor. This submission, therefore, is found to be without any merit. 7. It was further submitted that admittedly the respondent/management had entered into contracts with different contractors the details of which are given in Annexure P-4. Different contractors were employed at different times by the respondent/management but the petitioners continued working as security guards with the respondent/management under various contractors which clearly proves that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent/management and not of the contractors. This submission is also equally devoid of merit. This argument rather defeats the case of the petitioners. Different contractors were employed at different times by the respondent/management but the petitioners continued working as security guards with the respondent/management under various contractors which clearly proves that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent/management and not of the contractors. This submission is also equally devoid of merit. This argument rather defeats the case of the petitioners. They were clearly employed by one contractor in the beginning and it may be that the other contractor also chose the same persons i.e. the petitioners to perform the duties of security guards with the respondent/management, but, that does not create any direct relationship between the petitioners and the respondent/management. The petitioners continued to be the employees of the contractor may be one contractor or the other. 8. We are satisfied that the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence on the file to prove if they were ever appointed as security guards by the respondent/management or if they were ever paid any salary by the respondent/management or if their services were terminated by the respondent/management. If the petitioners had worked as employees of the respondent/management, then they would have drawn some salary and it would not have been difficult for the petitioners to summon those muster rolls or attendance registers or pay bills to prove that they had been drawing salary from the respondent/management but that has not been done. It is also not proved if it was a case of unfair labour practice. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court have stood the test of legal scrutiny at the hands of this Court and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned award dated 6.9.2004. 10. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. -