F.I. Rebello, J.

1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner has moved this Court to impugn the communication of September 4, 2006 whereby the Central Government as the appropriate Government has rejected the reference sought for by the petitioner in the manner of his status as workman employed with respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed by respondent No. 2 as driver-cum-operator since from 1999 and since then he was in continuous service till the time of his termination. Initially, the petitioner was receiving his payments of fixed monthly amount directly from respondent No. 2. The Petitioner's case is that subsequently to deprive him of his regular benefits after few years, respondent No. 2 through camouflage arrangement engaged the petitioner through a Contractor i.e. Trust Us Security Service without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that he does not know to read, write and/or to understand English though he signs in English language. On August 1, 2005, it is the petitioner's case that the Station In-charge respondent No. 2 asked workman not to join the duty and thereafter, he was not allowed to join t