(1.) Introduction
(2.) The petitioner, Sayed Navas, is the proprietor of 'the Professional Couriers', dealing in courier services. The cause-title in the writ petition and, now, in the writ appeal, shows the proprietary concern, a non-juristic entity, as the petitioner. So we refer to the petitioner as "the Professional Couriers" instead of "Sayed Navas", the original petitioner-a technicality that can be condoned.
(3.) The Professional Couriers is the franchisee of the eponymous franchiser, a private limited company at Mumbai. Both the franchisee and the franchiser have entered into the Ext.P1 agreement. Similarly, the franchisee, too, contracted with 11 persons, his agents, who have to operate on a commission basis. All the agents work independent of one another. The agents are, it is asserted, neither the branches nor the departments of the franchisee-just independent agents.