M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11598 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein-original workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur dated 04.03.2015 passed in Reference (LCP) No. 8 of 2007, by which, the learned Labour Court rejected the said Reference, the original petitioner-workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1 That the appellant herein-original petitioner claimed to have been appointed as Bore Operator. According to the original petitioner, he was appointed pursuant to the interview held on 17.05.1998 and was appointed by order dated 18.05.1998, having been selected in the said interview. It appears that according to the Municipality, the appointment order of the petitioner was not to be found in the official records and that there was no resolution passed by the Administrator appointing the petitioner on the said post, it was also found that the petitioner was never appointed by the Deesa Nagarpalika. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 31.03.2005, came to be issued against the petitioner. In the show-cause notice, it was stated inter-alia, that the petitioner has never been appointed on the post of Bore Operator. From the record of the Nagarpalika, it was revealed that no resolution has been passed appointing the petitioner on the said post nor any procedure has been undertaken for his appointment. In the show-cause notice, it was also stated that the service book of the petitioner was not prepared nor has he produced the medical fitness certificate. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioner has committed a fraud and has secured the appointment through fraudulent means. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service and why salary paid to him should not be recovered. It appears that petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice by his letter dated 2.4.2005. He stated that he appeared for the interview on 17.05.1998 and was asked to report for duty after verifying his original documents. He stated that he is discharging his duty since more than six years and receives regular salary and increments. He stated that he was never asked to supply medical fitness certificate. He denied that he has secured employment through fraud. At this stage, it is required to be noted that petitioner challenged the show- cause notice dated 31.03.2005 before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid petition, in which, show-cause notice was challenged, the Nagarpalika produced on record the order dated 12.04.2005, by which, the petitioner came to be removed from service. The elaborate submissions were made by the learned advocate for the respective parties on the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 at the time of hearing of the Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the final judgment and order dated 26.04.2005, the learned Single Judge specifically noted that though there was no prayer challenging the order dated 12.04.2005, he has permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court at length on the legality of such an order also. That thereafter, learned advocates for the respective parties made elaborate submissions on the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005, it is evident from the final judgment and order dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. In the order dated 12.04.2005, it was recorded that the petitioner was never selected in the interview held on 17.05.1998. It was also