Judgment 1. Heard Mr. R.E. Moharir, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.H. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award dt.30.8.2005 bearing Reference IDA No.15 of 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Akola whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated after declaring termination of the respondent from service as unlawful. 3. The respondent had joined the service with the petitioner as a Clerk in Sports quota on 6.1.1999. The respondent had joined on 22.1.1999 and his service was terminated w.e.f. 21.7.1999. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Award impugned directing to reinstate with back wages and continuity of service was wrongful as the respondent was not holding the post. It is contended that the employee was not holding any post. 4. The submission is that, in the dispute relating to the employer and the employee, the Court cannot go into merits unless the employer get the industrial dispute adjudicated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that preliminary objection was raised about relationship of the employer and the employee. It is argued that if the employee was working under the contract covered by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, then the Labour Court or the Industrial dispute adjudicating Authorities cannot have jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it falls within the province of an appropriate Government to abolish the same. Unless the employee establishes the fact that he is an employee under the “employer” under the Industrial Disputes Act, complaint would not be maintainable. In support of the submissions, reliance is placed upon the following rulings:- 1. Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Others, 2001 I CLR 754. 2. Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steel Ltd. & another, 2001 I CLR 532. 3. Sarva Shrameek Sangha vs. M/s Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 269. 4. Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/w Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Mumbai, 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 559 ( Ratio where the employer had never recognised the workmen as employees and throughout treated the persons as employees of the Contractors, the Court constituted under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.) 5. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 115 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 115 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. C.H. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the complaint regarding the unfair labour practice is maintainable in the Labour Court when there was no question involved of the contract of labour directly or indirectly. It is submitted that the question as to relationship between the employer and the employee is a pure question of fact and ordinarily the High Court would not interfere with the finding in exercise of the power of judicial review. The learned Counsel relied upon the following rulings:- 1. Fulchan Baburao Gedam vs. Lokmat Newspapers Ltd., 2007 III CLR 619. 2. Indo European Breweries Ltd Dnyaneshwar S/o. Shyamrao Dhanawate & Ors. 2011 I CLR 923. 6. The Labour Court, Akola by its well reasoned Judgment and Order held that that termination of the employment was in violation of the provisions of law and the employee was entitled to the relief sought for and thus, the Reference was answered in the affirmative. I have considered the submissions advanced in the light of the rulings cited. I do not find any perversity or serious infirmity in the impugned Judgment and order requiring interference by this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition is, thus, found without merit and it stands dismissed.