ORDER 1. Respondent No. 1 had filed a claim before the Labour Court against the management of two persons namely (i) MI s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd, and (ii) M/s. Archana Cinema Shopping Centre Association. His claim was that he was appointed by the management of M/s. AR. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. as Manager vide appointment letter dated 7.7.1986. It was alleged by him that his services were transferred by the management of M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. under an agreement between M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Archana Cinema Shopping Centre Association. Respondent No.1 was transferred to the management of respondent No.2 i.e. M/s. Archana Cinema Shopping Centre Association on 9.1.1987. He worked with respondent No.2 for 11 long years and was terminated by respondent No.2 vide termination letter dated 28.10.1998. Respondent No.1 claimed that since he was illegally terminated by the management of respondent No.2, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages by the management of both the managements i.e. M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. and also by the management of M/s. Archana Cinema Shopping Centre Association. 2. Both the managements filed their written statements before the Labour Court. They both denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The Labour Court vide its impugned award has directed the management of M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. to reinstate respondent No.1 in its service with full back wages. It is aggrieved by this award, the management of M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the said award. 3. Mr. Amit Sethi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (management of M/s. AR. Chadha and Co. It is aggrieved by this award, the management of M/s. A.R. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the said award. 3. Mr. Amit Sethi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (management of M/s. AR. Chadha and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd.) referring to the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 in his evidence before the Labour Court which is at pages 27 to 29 of the paper book has argued that the impugned award suffers from perversity as the Labour Court has completely ignored the admission of respondent No.1 himself in his evidence affidavit that he was an employee of respondent No.2 at the time of termination of his services and that he was paid his salary and contribution to the provident fund by the management of respondent No.2 namely M/s Archana Cinema Shopping Centre Association right from 9.1.1987 till he was terminated on 28.10.1998. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also taken me through the cross-examination of respondent No. 1 workman (Annexure 4 at page 30 of the paper book) to show the admission of the workman that in his PF AI c, it was the management of respondent No.2 who was sharing employers contribution after 1987. The workman has also admitted in his cross-examination that respondent No.2 is an Association and its members are the shopkeepers of Archana Cinema Shopping Complex. Respondent No.2 has his own President, Secretary, Executive Body and management. It shall be significant to mention that respondent No.1 workman has candidly admitted in his cross-examination that after 9.1.1987, he ceased to be an employee of the petitioner and became an employee of the management of respondent No.2. On the face of this admission by respondent No.1 workman, it does not stand to reason how the Court below could have directed the petitioner management to reinstate respondent No. 1 in its service. As per own admission of the workman, he ceased to be an employee of the petitioner 1987. This admission on his part clinches the matter and shows perversity on the part of the Labour Court in passing the impugned award against the petitioner management. The error in the impugned award is writ large and for that reason, the impugned award against the petitioner management cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. The error in the impugned award is writ large and for that reason, the impugned award against the petitioner management cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. In view of the foregoing, the impugned award is hereby set aside. This writ petition is allowed. However, since respondent No.1 workman had made a claim before the Labour Court for his reinstatement not only against the petitioner management but also against the management of respondent No.2, it will be appropriate and in the interest of justice to remand the case back to the Labour Court for deciding whether respondent No.1 workman is entitled to have any relief against the management of respondent No.2. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the Court below for fresh decision on the question whether respondent No. 1 workman is entitled to any relief for alleged termination of his services against the management of respondent No.2. The Labour Court will send a notice to respondent No.2 management before proceeding to decide the dispute afresh. Respondent No.1 workman is directed to appear before the Labour Court for directions at 2.00 p.m. on 6.1.2010. Since the termination of respondent No.1 workman is of 28.10.1998, the Court below is directed to decide the dispute afresh as directed above as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight months to be reckoned from 6.1.2010. 5. As the petitioner has succeeded in this writ petition, the award amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to Court order dated 13.2.2006 be released by the Registry in favour of the petitioner along with interest, if any, accrued thereon forthwith. 6. LCR along with a copy of this order be sent to the concerned labour Court successor Court for information and necessary compliance. Writ Petition allowed.