ORDER : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is made by the workman to the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat dated 17.08.2015 in Reference (LCS) No. 05 of 2008. The Labour Court has dismissed the reference. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the only defence put forward by the respondent employer was that there was no employer employee relationship. It is submitted that there was material on record in the form of I-card to show that there was employer employee relationship and once that material was there, the Labour Court should have accepted that say of the petitioner workman and since there was no other contest put forward by the employer, the Reference should have been allowed. It is submitted that the rejection of the Reference is illegal and the same be interfered with by this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of R.M Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer reported in 2006 (1) L.LN 7. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent employer has submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error by not accepting the say of the petitioner. It is submitted that even the only document produced by the petitioner was some I-card which itself indicates that he was employed through a contractor and thus for him the said/contractor was the employer. Mr. Dave has also drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the written statement dated 13.04.2015 Exh. 31, more particularly Para 6 thereof, where even details of the employer of the petitioner were also put on record. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error by rejecting the Reference and no interference be made by this Court. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 5. The Labour Court has recorded cogent reasons for the issues framed by it. The Labour Court has recorded that there was no legally acceptable material, produced by the concerned workman to establish that he had completed 240 days and/or there was illegal termination. The only document produced on behalf of the workman was in the form of an I-card, which itself indicated that there was no employer employee relationship. The Labour Court has recorded that there was no legally acceptable material, produced by the concerned workman to establish that he had completed 240 days and/or there was illegal termination. The only document produced on behalf of the workman was in the form of an I-card, which itself indicated that there was no employer employee relationship. If the petitioner approaches some customer on behalf of the contractor, he would not be treated to be an authorized man, beyond that, it would not confer any status to the petitioner. 6. This Court further finds that, in the written statement filed by the respondent, the details of the petitioner having relationship with some other employer were also mentioned and the same has remained controverted. 7. Considering the totality this Court finds that the Labour Court has not committed any error by rejecting the claim of the petitioner and no interference is required by this Court. So far the decision of the Supreme Court India in the case of R.M Yellatti (supra) as relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner-workman is concerned, not only it would not take the case of the petitioner any further but it would support the case of the employer in the facts of this case. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed. 8. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.