JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.T. Chako, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. Though served the respondent No. 3 has not entered appearance. The respondent No. 4 seems to be contractor and according to the remarks in the cause list the respondent No. 4 has died. No one has entered appearance for the respondents. 2.1 Mr. Chako, learned advocate for the respondent No. 5 clarified that the respondent No. 5 is heir/legal representative of the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5 is served with the process however he has not entered appearance. 3. In present petitions the petitioner has challenged award dated 26.12.2011 passed by learned Labour Court at Bharuch in Reference Case (LCB) 469 of 1999 whereby learned labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 40,000/- as lump sum amount. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction the petitioner has taken out present petition. 4. So far as factual background is concerned the petitioner has averred and stated that:-- "3.2 That after reference, respondent No. 3 filed his statement of claim....... It has been stated in that statement of claim by respondent No. 3 that he was doing the permanent work of the present petitioner company. The same works were being done by the workers of respondent No. 4. It was stated that the contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is a paper arranged contract. It has been stated that respondent No. 3 was doing the work as per the direction from the petitioner since 14.7.1996 and without any cause, his service was terminated on 26.3.1999, against which complaint was filed before the Assistant Commissioner where the settlement has taken place and respondent No. 3 was reinstated on 27.5.1999 with 70% of the back wages. It is further stated that he was not issued any presence card and identity card. He was not paid bonus. It is further stated that prior to discontinuing his service, he was not given an opportunity of hearing and no notice was issued. Since respondent No. 3 became member of the union, his service was again terminated on 8.8.1999. 3.3 That in response to the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner had filed a written statement at Exh. 11. It has been stated in the written statement that the learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain reference. Since respondent No. 3 became member of the union, his service was again terminated on 8.8.1999. 3.3 That in response to the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner had filed a written statement at Exh. 11. It has been stated in the written statement that the learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain reference. It was submitted that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and since respondent No. 3 is not an employee of the petitioner company, the reference itself is not maintainable. It is further stated in the written statement that respondent No. 3, in his statement of claim, has specifically mentioned that he is an employee of the contractor, i.e., respondent No. 4 and therefore, he is not an employee of the petitioner company and therefore, the reference is not maintainable". It was further stated that the petitioner company has not issued any appointment letter nor there is any direct Supervision or control over respondent No. 3. The allegation of the paper arranged contract made by respondent No. 3 was denied." 5. It emerges from the record that the respondent No. 3 raised industrial dispute with the allegation that his service is illegally terminated. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication. The dispute was registered as Reference LCB No. 469 of 1999. 5.1 At this stage it is pertinent to note that in view of the allegation by the claimant, appropriate government, in its order of reference, impleaded present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as party respondents and also impleaded petitioner company as opponent. 5.2 In his statement of claim the claimant alleged that he was working with the respondent since July 1996. He also alleged that though he was employed by the company it was shown that he was an employee of the contractor which was merely paper arrangement. He also alleged that earlier the service was illegally terminated in March 1999. Thereafter in pursuance of settlement he was reinstated in May 1999 however, the opponent again terminated his service in August 1999. He further alleged that though he had worked for more than 12 months and for more than 240 days the opponent did not pay retrenchment compensation and terminated his service without following the procedure prescribed by law. According to the claimant he was drawing salary at Rs. 71/- per day. He further alleged that though he had worked for more than 12 months and for more than 240 days the opponent did not pay retrenchment compensation and terminated his service without following the procedure prescribed by law. According to the claimant he was drawing salary at Rs. 71/- per day. 5.3 The petitioner company i.e. original opponent No. 2 opposed the reference by filing written statement wherein it claimed that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the company and the claimant. It was also claimed that the claimant was employee of contractor. The opponent No. 1 company i.e. present petitioner denied the allegations by the claimant. It also denied that the claimant worked on any permanent post. The opponent company i.e. petitioner also denied the allegation that the contract was mere paper arrangement and since the claimant was not employed by the company it had no obligation to pay retrenchment compensation or any other amount to the claimant. It was also claimed that opponent No. 1 was labour supplier and the claimant was employee of the opponent contractor. It appears that during the proceedings another opponent i.e. Avdhut Enterprise was also joined as party opponent. 5.4 After the stage of pleadings was closed learned labour Court framed 8 issues which included issue as to whether claimant proved that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that whether the opponent committed breach of Section 25F. Thereafter learned Labour Court recorded evidence of both sides and after considering evidence available on record and rival submissions by contesting parties learned Labour Court replied said issues in affirmative. 6. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the findings recorded by and the award passed by learned Labour Court. Hence this petition. 7. Mr. Chacko, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the claimant was not appointed and employed by the petitioner company but he was employed by the contractor. He also submitted that even the said contractor engaged the claimant intermittently and the claimant was not engaged continuously and the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. 7.1 According to learned advocate for the petitioner the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the company and the claimant and that therefore any direction could not have been passed against the petitioner company. 7.1 According to learned advocate for the petitioner the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the company and the claimant and that therefore any direction could not have been passed against the petitioner company. He also claimed that since the claimant was not appointed by the petitioner company and he was not employed by the petitioner, the company had no obligation to pay compensation to the claimant and in any case service of the claimant was not terminated by the company, though he might have been terminated by his employer i.e. contractor, and that therefore also the company had no obligation to pay any amount much less retrenchment compensation to the claimant. He submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to consider said aspects and passed impugned order without appreciating the submissions and/or facts of the case and/or evidence available on record. According to learned advocate for the petitioner the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and final directions are contrary to the evidence on record, unreasonable and erroneous. 8. As mentioned earlier no one has entered appearance for the respondents. 9. So far as award is concerned, in paragraph Nos. 13 to 17 learned Labour Court has examined and analyzed the evidence available on record. After discussing the evidence and analysing the evidence on record learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant was employee of the contractor and the opponent No. 2 i.e. present petitioner principal employer failed to establish that it did not exercise direct control and supervision in respect of claimant. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that since it was established that the petitioner company exercised direct control and supervision over the claimant, the opponent No. 1 company is responsible for termination of the concerned claimant. It also reached to the conclusion that the company failed to lead any evidence to contradict the evidence of the concerned claimant. Learned Labour Court also recorded that though the claimant had submitted an application for production of documents and the Court had passed order, the opponent failed to place relevant material on record. It also reached to the conclusion that the company failed to lead any evidence to contradict the evidence of the concerned claimant. Learned Labour Court also recorded that though the claimant had submitted an application for production of documents and the Court had passed order, the opponent failed to place relevant material on record. 9.1 Besides this, learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the opponents failed to prove that the service of the claimant was terminated for any misconduct or on account of any fault on part of the claimant and that he was terminated after conducting domestic inquiry and after affording opportunity of hearing to the claimant. 9.2 The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the claimant's service was terminated by way of retrenchment. 10. From the record of the petition it has emerged that the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record of the petition which would demonstrate that the findings recorded by learned Labour Court are incorrect or perverse or arbitrary. 10.1 The petitioner has also failed to establish that the service of the claimant was terminated for any misconduct or for irregularity in attending duty or for any other fault on part of the workmen. 10.2 The petitioner and other opponents also failed to establish that the service of the claimant was not terminated or that he was voluntarily not reporting for work. 10.3 Learned Labour Court found that the claimant was not terminated for any misconduct. The learned Labour Court found that the claimant's termination amounts to retrenchment. Thereafter learned labour Court proceeded to examine as to whether the opponent/s had followed the procedure prescribed under section 25F for retrenching employee. After considering the evidence on record learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant's service was terminated without payment of compensation and without following procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Act. 11. The learned Labour Court has recorded findings and conclusion after examining and analysing evidence on record and the findings are based on available evidence. It cannot be said that the findings are not based on evidence or that the findings of fact are without support of evidence or contrary to the evidence on record and that the findings are perverse. 12. In this view of the matter the conclusion by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 13. It cannot be said that the findings are not based on evidence or that the findings of fact are without support of evidence or contrary to the evidence on record and that the findings are perverse. 12. In this view of the matter the conclusion by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 13. Having reached said conclusion, learned Labour Court considered the issue about appropriate relief. From the evidence on record the Court noticed that the claimant had source of income and he was gainfully engaged. Learned Labour Court also took into account that the claimant was actually appointed by the contractor and the contract with the concerned contractor had come to an end. 14. Having considered the said aspect, more particularly having regard to the fact that the contract under which the claimant was engaged has already expired learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to award lump sum compensation instead of directing opponent to reinstate the claimant. Consequently learned Labour Court quantified amount of compensation after taking into account the claimant's tenure of service with the opponents his salary etc. at Rs. 40,000/-. 14.1 The Court has considered the Labour Court's decision to award compensation instead of reinstatement and other benefits as well as the decision as regards quantification of compensation. Having regards to the facts of the case and in light of the aspects considered by learned trial Court and the decision is found just, legal and fair as well as equitable and it does not warrant any interference. 14.2 It is pertinent that the workman appears to have accepted both the decisions i.e. (a) granting lump-sum compensation and (b) quantification of compensation, and the said decisions have not been challenged by the workman. 15. In light of the facts of the case when the said final decision of the learned Labour Court is taken into account then it emerges that the learned labour Court has discussed and analyzed evidence on record and has recorded cogent and sufficient reason in support of its conclusion and the decision cannot be faulted and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or unjustified. In the facts of the case the conclusions recorded by learned Labour Court are justified. 16. In the facts of the case the conclusions recorded by learned Labour Court are justified. 16. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also failed to show any evidence from record which would convince the Court that the findings recorded by learned labour court are incorrect or perverse. 17. Any case to interfere with the conclusion recorded by learned Labour court and/or final decision of the learned Labour Court is not made out. Therefore the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Orders accordingly.