JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated May 9, 2008 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court VI, Fast Track, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back-wages. 2. The petitioner alleges his termination from the service of respondent being Mitsui & Co. Ltd. w.e.f. August 7, 1998. He had raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before it, has reached to a conclusion that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties warranting reinstatement of the petitioner as he was employed as a personal driver of the respondent's Group Project Manager, Mr. Krishan Khanna, who resigned from the service of respondent company on the same day, i. e., August 7, 2008 when the services of petitioner were allegedly terminated. The petitioner was engaged as a driver for driving the car allotted to respondent's Group Project Manager, Mr. Krishan Khanna who under the rules of the company was entitled to personal allowance of Rs. 3500 per month. The Court below for cogent reasons contained in the impugned award has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was employed by the respondent company. The Court below has further noted in the impugned award that there was ho privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent company. 3. The grievance raised by the, petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Ghulam Dastagir, (1978) 2 SCC 358 . In Punjab National Bank v. Ghulam Dastagir (supra) also, the claim of the driver, engaged for the Area Manager of the Bank, for his reinstatement was found not sustainable as the driver was not engaged by the Bank but by the Area Manager in terms of rules applicable to the (Bank. In this case also, the petitioner was engaged for driving the car of respondent's Group Project Manager and not by the respondent. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.