JUDGMENT : This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.08.2015 common order passed in W.P Nos.20563/2007 and W.P.No.69010/2010 wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that, the appellant has assailed the order dated 01.06.2010 passed in KID No.63/2005 by the respondent No.2, wherein, the dispute raised by the appellant was dismissed. The Corporation has assailed the order dated 31.07.2007 of the 2nd respondent, wherein, he has directed the respondent-Corporation to pay Rs.91,484/-, within 30 days to the appellant, before the learned Single Judge. Both the writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant and disposed of the writ petition filed by the corporation as having become infructuous. The appellant has approached the 2nd respondent seeking to set aside the oral termination order passed by the respondent No.1 and sought prayer to reinstate him into service with full backwages in KID No.63/2005. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.06.2010 dismissed the petition holding that, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to show that he was appointed by the respondent-Corporation on daily wage and refused to accept the claim of the appellant as a workman under the respondent-Corporation. In another proceedings the appellant workman has raised the dispute in MWACR No.1/2006 seeking prayer to pay the difference of minimum wages and arrears. The respondent No.2 authority vide order dated 31.07.2007 has allowed the claim and directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs.91,484/-within 30 days. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2010, the appellant has filed writ petition No.69010/2010 and the respondent No.1-Corporation has filed writ petition No.20563/2007, challenging the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge by common order dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/workman on 06.08.2015 and held that the Writ Petition filed by Corporation has become infructuous. With the above factual matrix, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Anant P. Savadi, appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that, the appellant has placed on record that, there was an employer and employee relation between the appellant and the respondent-Corporation and he was appointed as a daily wager. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Anant P. Savadi, appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the evidence on record. It is submitted that, the appellant has placed on record that, there was an employer and employee relation between the appellant and the respondent-Corporation and he was appointed as a daily wager. It is submitted that, the respondent-corporation has adopted unfair labour practice in engaging the employee without showing their name in the records and extracted the work. The said fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, resulted in dismissal of the writ petition. He places his reliance on the document which he has filed subsequently on 05.12.2019 along with memo by contending that, the appellant has worked as a Typist on contract basis and submits that, there is sufficient material available on record to establish the fact that the appellant was working as a daily wage employee of the Corporation. He submits that the learned Single Judge as well as Tribunal have committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. 4. Per contra, Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawdagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the Judgment dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned single Judge by contending that, the appellant has failed to establish that, he was a workman with the respondent-corporation, hence, learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that there is no employer and employee relationship and dismissed the writ petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 6. The appellant claims that he was appointed as daily wager and working as Typist from 01.07.1998 and he has worked continuously for a period of seven years on daily wage for a sum of Rs.50/-under the 1st respondent-Corporation and as per the notification issued under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, they have failed to pay the minimum wages to the appellant. Hence, he has filed the application under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, seeking for payment of minimum wages before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has allowed the petition/claim of the appellant and directed the respondent-Corporation to pay Rs.45,742/- a difference amount and the penalty of Rs.45,742/-, in total the corporation has been directed to pay Rs.91,484/-. Hence, he has filed the application under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, seeking for payment of minimum wages before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has allowed the petition/claim of the appellant and directed the respondent-Corporation to pay Rs.45,742/- a difference amount and the penalty of Rs.45,742/-, in total the corporation has been directed to pay Rs.91,484/-. It is not in dispute that, the appellant has raised the dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, praying to set aside the oral termination order passed by the respondent-Corporation, terminating the service of the appellant from 06.09.2005 with a further direction to the respondent-corporation to re-instate him into the service with full backwages. The respondent No.2 has dismissed the petition vide order dated 01.06.2010 in KID No.63/2005. The respondent No.2 has categorically recorded the finding that, the appellant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim that he was appointed by the respondent-Corporation as a daily wager and he has failed to establish the jural relationship of employer and employee. He cannot be termed as a workman under the respondent No.1/Corporation. The respondent No.2 in another proceeding initiated by the appellant without considering the order dated 01.06.2010 has proceeded to pass order dated 31.01.2007 directing the Corporation to pay Rs.91,484/-. The learned Single Judge has set aside the said order dated 31.01.2007. On close scrutiny of the martial on record, there is no iota of evidence to show that the appellant was appointed as a daily wager by the respondent-Corporation and he was getting salary of Rs.50/-per day as claimed by the appellant. The claim of the appellant is without any basis and without any material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has heavily placed reliance on the documents placed in this appeal along with Memo dated 05.12.2019 to contend that, the appellant was working as a daily wager. The said Memo dated 05.12.2019 is not supported with an affidavit of the appellant and it is accompanied by the memo of facts of the learned counsel of the appellant. When things stood thus, this Court cannot give any weightage to the subsequent document placed by the appellant in this proceeding and there is no justification for not placing those documents before the authority and before the learned Single Judge. When things stood thus, this Court cannot give any weightage to the subsequent document placed by the appellant in this proceeding and there is no justification for not placing those documents before the authority and before the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, the documents produced along with the application are strongly disputed by the learned counsel Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, contending that those documents are not issued by the respondent-corporation, nor they are available in their records. When things stood thus, the documents produced along with the application by the appellant are in cloud and has no evidentiary value to adjudicate the facts of the case and even those documents does not establish the fact that, the appellant was appointed as daily wager and worked for a particular period, hence, the said contention of the appellant is considered only for the purpose of rejection. 7. The learned single Judge has recorded a categorical finding based on the order dated 01.06.20109 passed in KID No.63/2005 of the respondent No.2, that the appellant was not an employee of the respondent No.1-Corporation. Hence, rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant, holding that there is no employer and employee relationship and the appellant is not a workman under the respondent No.1-Corporation. 8. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned single Judge. The appellant has failed to place on record any evidence to substantiate the claim that, he was appointed as a daily wager by the respondent No.1-Corporation and there is a jural relationship of employer and employee. In view of the same, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same fails and hereby dismissed.