ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner – workman seeking for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 173 of 2015 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts of the present petition are that the respondent – Corporation issued public advertisement in the local newspaper and on the basis of the advertisement, the petitioner has applied for the post of pump operator in the category of SCBC and after verifying the documents, he was appointed as a pump operator along with the others in the water works department with the respondent – Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that an inquiry was held and the selection committee held that one Mr.Pradip Hathisinh Tuvara who appointed in the SCST category, was not actually SCST candidate but he was an SEBC candidate and therefore the merit list was revised and Mr.Tuvara was placed in SEBC list. Now just to accommodate Mr. Tuvara in the SEBC list, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that since his appointment was cancelled, the petitioner came to be termination from the services.

3. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court by filing Reference (L.C.R.) No, 173 of 2015. After considering the submissions of both the parties and considering the evidence available on record, the Labour Court has rejected the reference filed by the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. Heard Mr.Rathin Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K. V. Ghadia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

6. Mr.Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has issued public advertisement in the local newspapers and on the basis of the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of pump operator in the category of SEBC. He has submitted that after verifying the relevant documents, the petitioner was appointed along with the others vide order No.R.M.N.P/Mahekam/1379 dated 07.01.2015 subject to the conditions enumerated in the appointment order. He has submitted that after about eight months, the present petitioner came to be terminated from the service as the candidate from the said category, who was on the top of the petitioner, was left out. He has submitted that the respondent formed the Selection Committee and the Committee, after scrutinizing all the forms, found that the respondent has committed mistake and no any fault on the part of the petitioner, despite of this fact, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated / cancelled. He has submitted that without considering all these aspects, the Labour Court has rejected the reference and, therefore the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is unjust and illegal. He has submitted that for accommodation of some other candidate, the respondent had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of unknown reasons and even he had worked for more than six months. He has submitted that without there being any departmental inquiry or paying for alleged termination, the impugned order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner came to be passed and the same was challenged before the Labour Court and without appreciating such fact, the Labour Court has rejected the Reference. Mr.Raval, learned counsel has submitted that if at all the main petition is not to be considered then alternatively, the relief for paying compensation to be passed, for which, he has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishan Pal Singh reported in 2021 JX (