JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Award dated 2.11.1998, published on 19.2.1999, passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Agra (respondent No. 1) in Adjudication Case No. 110 of 1988. 2. Copy of the said Award has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition. 3. It appears that Reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made to the Labour Court to the effect as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner (workman) on the post of Cook on 15.3.1986 was proper and/or legal, and if not, to what relief the petitioner (workman) was entitled. 4. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was employed by the respondent No. 2 on regular basis on the post of Cook since 1980; and that his services were terminated without any notice etc. on 15.3.1986; and that the provisions regarding retrenchment were not complied with. 5. The case of the respondent No. 2 was that no person by the name of Sharifuddin (petitioner), so-called workman, was ever employed as a Cook by the respondent No. 2; and that there was no Kitchen in the Hotel of the respondent No. 2, and as such, there was no necessity of any Cook; and that there was no relationship of employer and workman between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner; and that there was no provision/ facility for providing lunch/dinner/ snacks to the customers of the Hotel; and that no food or other eatables were cooked in the Hotel; and that the petitioner was a Cook who worked on contract (Theka) basis for different parties as and when occasion arose; and that the engagement of the petitioner was synonymous to private Halwai, who were engaged for marriage etc.; and that similarly, the petitioner was engaged only when any big tourist group wanted particular type of vegetables or for Barats and other parties, and the same was done on behalf of the customer; and that the payments were made directly by the customer to the petitioner. 6. It further appears that the parties led evidence before the Labour Court in support of their respective cases. 7. 6. It further appears that the parties led evidence before the Labour Court in support of their respective cases. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned Award dated 2.11.1998, inter-alia, holding that no relationship of employer and workman was established between the parties. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the services of the petitioner were not terminated on 15.3.1986, and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Written Statement was submitted by the respondent No. 2 in C.B. Case No. 508 of 1986, and in paragraph 5 of the said Written Statement, the respondent No. 2 admitted that one Riyaz Mohammad and one Kullu had worked as Cook. In the circumstances, the submission proceeds, it was evident that there was Kitchen in the Hotel of the respondent No. 2, and the Labour Court acted in a perverse manner in concluding to the contrary. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition, which is a copy of the said Written Statement of the respondent No. 2, filed in C.B. Case No. 508 of 1986. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. 12. The Labour Court has considered the material on record, particularly the orders passed by the Sales Tax Department, and has concluded that there was no relationship of employer and workman between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. It has further been noted by the Labour Court that the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding his employment with the respondent No. 2. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that in his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that except for an Application dated 10.4.1986 sent to the respondent No. 2, he was not having any evidence of his employment. 13. Having perused the impugned Award, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 14. As regards the Written Statement filed in C.B. Case No. 508 of 1986 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition), I have perused the said Written Statement. 13. Having perused the impugned Award, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 14. As regards the Written Statement filed in C.B. Case No. 508 of 1986 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition), I have perused the said Written Statement. In my opinion, paragraph 5 of the said Written Statement cannot be read in isolation. The entire Written Statement, including paragraph 5 of the Written Statement, will have to be read together. 15. Reading paragraph 5 of the Written Statement in the context of the entire Written Statement, particularly paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Additional Pleas taken in the said Written Statement, I am of the opinion that the said Written Statement does not establish that there was any Kitchen in the Hotel of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the said Written Statement (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) cannot be accepted. 16. In my opinion, the impugned Award dated 2.11.1998 has been passed giving valid reasons, and no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Labour Court in passing the said Award. 17. Hence, the present Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ————