Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Petitioner Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sriganganagar and another have preferred this writ petition against the judgment and award dated 21.04.2008 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in Claim Case No.29/2006, by which, award was passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in favour of the respondent workman whereby respondent workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 50% back-wages. 2. Brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that respondent No.2 was engaged through contractor known as District Ex-Servicemen Welfare Samiti, Sriganganagar on contract basis as Supervisor. For providing the said services, an agreement was arrived at in between the Superintending Engineer (O & M), erstwhile R.S.E.B., Sriganganagar and President of the aforesaid welfare cooperative society on 20.02.1998, by which, it was agreed upon that under the Executive Engineer, Sriganganagar there is requirement of one Supervisor and, in lieu of sending certain incumbent, the first party was to pay Rs.2100/- per month to the second party as per contract rate agreed between the parties. The agreement arrived at in between the parties was extended from time to time. Respondent No.2 was engaged through aforesaid welfare society on 30.01.2002 as Supervisor and he was allowed to continue on the said post without any break up to 10.06.2004. Thereafter, the services of respondent workman Tej Khan was terminated with effect from 10.06.2004. 3. Respondent workman raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer but, upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for reference and vide notification dated 16.11.2006, following reference was made to the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar : ^^D;k izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; Jfed fu;kstd dk lEcU/k gS\ ;fn gkW rks D;k Jfed Jh rkt [kk¡ iq= Jh eUuq [kk¡ fuoklh fetokyk ftyk Jh xaxkuxj dks blds fu;kstd la[;k 1 vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] tks/kiqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy- Jh xaxkuxj ,oa fu;kstd la-2 lgk;d vfHk;Urk tks/kiqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy- dsljhflagiqj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj }kjk fnukad 10-6-2004 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh gS\** 4. After reference, the respondent workman filed his claim on 7.3.2007, in which, it is claimed by him that he was appointed on the post of Supervisor in pursuance of the recommendation made by Ex-Servicemen Welfare Society, Sriganganagar. After reference, the respondent workman filed his claim on 7.3.2007, in which, it is claimed by him that he was appointed on the post of Supervisor in pursuance of the recommendation made by Ex-Servicemen Welfare Society, Sriganganagar. On 4.2.2002 the Junior Engineer, Kesarisinghpur gave orders for joining of the respondent workman and he joined duties on 18.2.2002. In the claim petition, it is specifically mentioned that workman continued on the said post till 10.6.2004 and completed 240 days in the preceding one calendar year. Thereafter, the services of the respondent workman were terminated without compliance of Sections 25A and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The petitioner Nigam (erstwhile RSEB) filed its reply to the claim, in which, it is denied that respondent workman was appointed on the post of Supervisor and, in fact, for some period he was appointed as temporary driver through the ex-servicemen welfare Samiti, Sriganganagar, therefore, no relationship of master and servant came in existence because appointment was made under agreement arrived at in between the ex-servicemen welfare society, on the one hand, and Superintending Engineer (O & M), on the other hand. Therefore, it is prayed in the reply by the petitioner Nigam that the petitioner itself is not employer of the workman and reference deserves to be answered against the workman. 6. After filing reply, opportunity to lead evidence was given by the Labour Court to both the parties and, in support of claim, affidavit of workman Tej Khan was filed and 11 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation, affidavit of NAW-1 Balram Verma and affidavit of NAW-2 S.K. Gupta were filed. After hearing both the parties, learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman and held that as per record of the case, the workman has established that there is relationship of servant and master in between the workman and petitioner Corporation because the Welfare Samiti, as per agreement, sponsored name of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor and this fact is not disputed by the Corporation. Learned Judge, Labour Court observed in para 6 of the award that all the documents, Ex.-1 to Ex.-11, filed by the workman were accepted by the Corporation, therefore, finding was given that respondent workman completed 240 days and, for valid termination, compliance of Sections 25F and 25H was to be made. 7. Learned Judge, Labour Court observed in para 6 of the award that all the documents, Ex.-1 to Ex.-11, filed by the workman were accepted by the Corporation, therefore, finding was given that respondent workman completed 240 days and, for valid termination, compliance of Sections 25F and 25H was to be made. 7. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court with regard to relationship of master and servant in between the petitioner Corporation and workman is totally erroneous because admittedly as per claim itself the respondent workman was appointed through Ex-Serviceman Welfare Society, Sriganganagar with whom an agreement was arrived at with the petitioner Corporation for supplying employees on contract basis, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent workman was employee of the petitioner Corporation. It is vehemently argued that as per the aforesaid admitted fact, it cannot be said that at the time of discontinuance of the contract the petitioner Corporation was under obligation to comply with the provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of the ground that there was no master and servant relationship in between the Corporation and respondent workman, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the following judgments for consideration: (1) (2006) 5 SCC 180 , Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber (P) Ltd. Versus Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. & Others (2) (2007) 7 SCC 710 , Canteen Mazdoor Sabha Versus Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. & Others (3) (2007) 7 SCC 718 , Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishand & Another Versus State of Gujarat & Others (4) (2006) 4 SCC 1 , Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Versus Umadevi & Others. While placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments of the apex Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the award impugned may be quashed and set aside because the workman cannot be termed as employee of the Corporation. 8. While placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments of the apex Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the award impugned may be quashed and set aside because the workman cannot be termed as employee of the Corporation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman vehemently argued that even if it is accepted that name of the petitioner was sponsored under the agreement, then also, it cannot be said that finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court with regard to relationship of master and servant in between Corporation and respondent workman is not erroneous because upon perusal of the impugned award it is revealed that no work contract was given to the Samiti; but, in fact, the agreement was to sponsor the name of employee for providing appointment. Therefore, obviously, the Judge, Labour Court took cognizance of the fact that remuneration was paid by the Corporation to the persons who were sponsored by the Ex-Serviceman Welfare Society. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by learned Labour Court, which is finding of fact, does not require any interference and award passed by the Labour Court is based upon sound reasons. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent workman further submitted that the petitioner Corporation is not disputing the tenure during which the workman worked under the control of the Corporation till 10.06.2004, therefore, on admitted facts, when the period is not disputed and finding is given by the Labour Court that there was relationship of master and servant between petitioner Corporation and workman, then, there is no ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar. 10. I have considered rival submissions advanced by both the parties. 11. It is not disputed in this petition that respondent workman was appointed on 18.02.2002 and he worked up to 10.06.2004. Therefore, as per facts, it is established by the workman that he worked for more than 240 days in the preceding one calendar year from the date of his termination from service. With regard to finding of master and servant relationship, I have perused the entire record of the case. Therefore, as per facts, it is established by the workman that he worked for more than 240 days in the preceding one calendar year from the date of his termination from service. With regard to finding of master and servant relationship, I have perused the entire record of the case. From the pleadings and record, it emerges that a contract was arrived at in between Ex-Serviceman Welfare Society, Sriganganagar with the Superintending Engineer (O & M), R.S.E.B. and according to the said contract agreement, the society was to sponsor name of candidate for appointment and, in pursuance of that, name of respondent workman was sponsored by the society. Thereafter, the respondent workman performed duties under the control of the petitioner Corporation; meaning thereby, remuneration was paid to the respondent workman by the Corporation and before the Judge, labour Court, it is admitted by the petitioner employer that respondent workman was provided appointment but said appointment was through the Ex-Serviceman Welfare Society, Sriganganagar with whom an agreement was arrived at. In my opinion, when remuneration was paid by the petitioner Corporation directly to the workman and work of the Welfare Society was only to sponsor the name for appointment of the person, then, it cannot be said that there was no no relationship of servant and master between the respondent workman and petitioner Corporation. In fact, as per agreement, Rs.2100/- per month was agreed to be paid to the Supervisor and workman respondent was appointed Supervisor and he was paid Rs.2100/- per month, then, obviously the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. In my opinion, the relationship of master and servant is in existence in this case. 12. In the case of Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber (P) Ltd. Versus Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. & Others (supra), detective and security services were provided by the company to the various organizations, therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no master and servant relationship in between the employer and workman. As such the facts of the cited case are altogether different. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others. As such the facts of the cited case are altogether different. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others. In my opinion, the facts of that case do not apply to the case on hand because in this case the claim is not for regularization, therefore, the principle enumerated in Umadevi's case is altogether different. 14. In the case of Canteen Mazdoor Sabha vs. Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. & Others (supra), the facts of that case were that canteen was run on contract basis for employees of the respondent, therefore, apex Court held that control over appointment and terms of service of the canteen employees was independent management and company was not under any legal obligation to comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this view of the matter, the said judgment is also totally based upon altogether different facts than the facts of the present case. 15. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the present controversy. 16. After examining the entire record of the case, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by learned Judge, Labour Court while giving the finding that there was relationship of master and servant in between respondent workman and petitioner Corporation because his name was sponsored by the Ex-Servicemen Welfare Society for appointment on the post of Supervisor and, in pursuance of that, the petitioner Corporation appointed the respondent workman on the post of Supervisor, therefore, at the time of terminating his services the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were to be complied with which has not been done. Hence, no case is made out for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.